A open letter to atheist brothers/sisters,
As answer to post Buddhist way and in response to one of my brothers,
You hate religion so much that you just find religion in everything. First of all read/learn about yoga. It is Agnostic philosophy which don't believe in supremacy of god . Even word "Brahman/The One/Source " is defined in many ways in Hinduism, It varies school to school , some school of Hinduism even reject the idea of Brahman . Buddhism also reject the idea of Brahman/GOD. So Buddhism is the earliest Atheism, even though it is considered as religion by Westerners. Before 11 th century there was no idea of religion in India. In Sanskrit there is no word for "religion or Evil".
In Indian philosophy, three schools of thought are commonly referred to as nastika for rejecting the doctrine of Vedas: Jainism, Buddhism and Cārvāka. Though nastika, meaning heterodox, refers to the non-belief of Vedas rather than non-belief of God,all these schools also reject the notion of a creationist god.
Mimamsas argued that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals.
Among the various schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, Yoga and Mimamsa while not rejecting either the the Vedas or the Brahman , typically reject a personal God, creator God, or a God with attributes. While Samkhya and Yoga rejected the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God, Mimamsa argued that the Vedas could not have been authored by a deity.
Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda states:
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
For example you may have problem with "OM", even with out understanding the meaning of it (For better understanding of it , read Fourier series (Go to NPTEL lecturers of signal and system ,IIT chennai), Probabilistic wave Atomic model) . I am not saying that those ancient people understand these scientific theories. But they did have power of observing the effects, It is the language of explanation which differs. They have philosophical approach of course what do you expect from ancient mind . I am doing a Phd in electrical in Engg. and I will never claim in absence or presence of anything with out properly understanding it. Is Atheism exist is just to "HATE" religion. Just like every other religious orthodox hate other religion. I think "NO". We should try to understand everything , should praise it if it has something good in it.Is Atheism exist is just to "HATE" religion. If you think yes than I can feel sorry for you because you have become the same thing that you wanted to destroy.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Mangal Das - "For better understanding of it , read Fourier series"
I keep trying to 'read the Fourier series' but they don't release the books fast enough, so the sum eludes me :P
Fourier series is a mathematical tool. Which is used for calculating the fundamental tone/ frequency of any signal. Now Physicist all over world accepts that there is a fundamental force/frequency/energy in universe. Although its nature and how it interact with universe is highly debatable issue and I am not in favor of calling it "GOD". But my dear friend you will have to give it any name (technical/Non technical).
I know what the Fourier series is; you are the one who suggested we should "read it"...
Mangal Das - "Now Physicist all over world accepts that there is a fundamental force/frequency/energy in universe."
That is a load of flim-flam.
If you know Fourier series then I am saying this under the assumption of that you might know this :
Fourier was not able to publish his work in mathematical journal, As there is a fundamental flaw in it . But we know it works quite remarkably. Dear friend, we can not keep on jumping with technical jargon because it would be impossible for normal human to understand it. This in turn give rise to Hypothesis of GOD so that a normal human can live a peaceful life.Hypothesis of GOD shows a constant struggle of Human kind to find the truth behind the natural events. As our level of knowledge upgrades, our definition of GOD changes.
Science alone can not solve problems, philosophy will also work in tune with science. It is we humans who creates science, Hypothesis of GOD not vice-versa. Some times intuition of human works as light for science . One example is Clarke Orbit.
Problem is not "what we know or what we don't, Real problem is :we think what we know about the world is correct". This leads to
orthodoxy (Religious or Atheist) which in turn leads to elimination of scope of improvement. Before rejecting/accepting any idea, we should consider scientific, social, economic and environmental factors. As far as my claim of underline unity of universe, you can discuss it with any good particle physicist. His language of explanation may be different but essence will be same. Only discussion is on the point how this frequency/energy (Scientific mumbo-jumbo)/Brahman/GOD (Religious mumbo-jumbo) interact with universe.
mindless dribble. You have been suckered by the crackpots.
"mindless dribble" ; you think you understand science , but reality is you are child who are pretending to understand it.
You are not Atheist because abusing or using street language does not change the fact. Go learn science then come back and then claim you are atheist. Go back to your mama and learn the ways a nice scientist should speak.
People like you make atheism is counter carbon copy of religious orthodoxy. Instead of "Allah/god/Jesus" you use "Sub standard language" when you can n't handle arguments.
"Instead of "Allah/god/Jesus" you use "Sub standard language" when you can n't handle arguments."
You mean sort of like you just did?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPmmLRR9wTI :Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku. Does God exist ?
My stand is somewhere between Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku.
Science is the best way to solve the mystery of GOD but until we fully understand it , we should be cautious in saying that in general GOD/Brahman does not exist , Infect much better way of saying it we are nearly 100 % sure that GOD of Bible, Quran and Puranas (one school of Hinduism which take these stories literally) does not exist. In view this is the most honest position.
I saw Kaku give a speech in person. He is a liar and hack and you can't trust anything he says is honest
Yep, well said, we should not jump to conclusions just because the people promoting these concepts tend to be unreliable and frankly insane.
Every single claim has to be analyzed objectively without bias.
Dear CyberLN ,
If you find things objectionable in my language then point it out. I will remove it from my posts, If I can.
It's interesting that you didn't get the point I was making. You chastise someone for using language you thought inappropriate, yet used similar language in the chastisement.
An excellent example of crimestop.
Dear CyberLN ,
If you find things objectionable in my language then "Point that line out". I will remove it from my posts, If I can. These things may happen in heat of debate . I will remove The line which has abusive words. I think Nyarlathotep, is your friend as synchronicity of your comments suggest that but still point out that line, read his comments ; my language is far more better than his.
I don't give a crap about the language used as long as it breaks no forum guidelines.
What I find inexcusable is "do as I say, not as I do" behavior. That, mangal, is the point in my post you so obviously missed.
Additionally, what the hell difference does a friendship, or lack thereof, with Nyarlathotep make? Do you actually think that would effect my ability to have and state an opinion?
Stating an opinion is not a problem but stating a biased opinion is. I never said how a person should behave in his private life, but one should use proper language in a social forum specially in debates. More weaker you are in an argument, more quickly you loose patience. It is my right to demand decency in a debate. You are using same reasoning which Islamic terrorist use for killing Infedels.
They (I) don't give a crap about the methods (language) used as long as it breaks no Quran (forum) guidelines.
See , How similar it sounds.
You have not given any input on topic of post. You should give your inputs on topic of post, rather then wasting energy in trivia.
Well, this latest post of yours is, IMO, the tipping point. Silliness, pure silliness.
The only person who could be silly here, is you.
"Instead of "Allah/god/Jesus" you use "Sub standard language" when you can n't handle arguments."
"You mean sort of like you just did?"
He is only asking you, where did he do it?
He has the right to know.
Support your claim instead of accusing people unjustly.(flame-bait)
This is considered flaming and I am ready to break my "ignore policy" for it.
Now you are accusing him of being silly in his entire post too, without supporting your claim again.
Which points are silly?
Is doubting your biased opinion silly?
(which frankly is quite obvious when one does not support his claims)
Sill waiting for a direct answer from you about those questions.
Mangal Das - "You are using same reasoning which Islamic terrorist use for killing Infedels."
Oh man, what a troll.
Back to this whole energy concept, I think there's a flaw in what we perceive as energy. When you talk, an organ in your throat (larynx, voice-box) creates a vibration that travels across the molecules in the room in a wave-effect. If another person in the room has working auditory organs (ears) the sound is translated into a similar vibration inside and if the person is capable of understanding the vibrations (language) they can receive knowledge. The question is did it take energy to pass the knowledge and did they receive energy along with it? If we are using a telephone it's obvious it uses energy, the phone company charges us for it, right? We can assume it requires energy because I don't make sounds through my larynx without first contemplating how to produce the sound and then drawing a puff of air to create it with. Once the sound radiates from my throat though, it must be carried along, and do the molecules carrying it along change at all from the energy? I could go for days but the only environment accepted to be completely energy-free is the vacuum of space and with the concept of dark energy that concept is all but broken as well. A new concept (theory) of negative-energy is the topic for science-fiction writers, but if a previously considered 'energy-less' space now may contain negative energy then we need to better define what energy is.
"The question is did it take energy to pass the knowledge and did they receive energy along with it? If we are using a telephone it's obvious it uses energy, the phone company charges us for it, right?"
Yes it takes energy.
"Once the sound radiates from my throat though, it must be carried along, and do the molecules carrying it along change at all from the energy?"
It is assumed that the energy is moving outwards and other energy is moving inwards to replace.
(very simple example in 2d)
Imagine water waves and you create a wave by tapping on the surface of the water.
You are using energy to create a wave which is in itself energy pushing sideways. But the level of the water remains the same, other water is being brought back at the point of the tapping to replace.
Yes the energy of the vacuum, you so much believe that does not exist.
There is evidence to support that it does,
You may feel comfortable believing that it does not exist even after researching the evidence, but a scientist always follows where the evidence leads, and right now it leads to a universe full of energy. They call it dark energy and dark matter.
We still do not understand well it's mechanism, but that is the beauty of science.
To have an unknown and try to discover what it is with hypothesis and theories.
Hate to quote from Wikipedia but it has a nice historical summery:
"Astrophysicists hypothesized the existence of dark matter in the light of discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and their mass as calculated from the observable matter (stars, gas, and dust) that they can be seen to contain. Their gravitational effects suggest that their masses are greater than the observable matter survey suggests. Dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932, albeit based upon flawed or inadequate evidence, to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Adequate evidence from galaxy rotation curves was discovered by Horace W. Babcock in 1939, but was not attributed to dark matter. The first to postulate dark matter based upon robust evidence was Vera Rubin in the 1960s–1970s, using galaxy rotation curves. Subsequently many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies and, more recently, the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today."
"we need to better define what energy is."
yes we do need to define it.
Dark matter and dark energy is the result of patches in the standard model of cosmology, without them that model would not work compared to the facts observed.
I more think that we need a better model of cosmology, that does not need dark matter and dark energy to patch the inconsistencies.
A model that works perfectly without them.
That model could be a model that assumes energy is everywhere and that sound happens because this energy connects everybody to it.
We call it empty space but what if we are like a fish in the water and do not feel the water until we experience a different medium then vacuum?
Could we experience something different then vacuum? or are we too small for that?
Could vacuum be energy in perfect equilibrium so we do not see/feel it?(all forces are cancelling each other out)
So many questions that science one day will answer, right now it is our duty to come up with hypothesis to that end.
When your Wiki document says "Their gravitational effects suggest that their masses are greater than the observable matter survey suggests." the problem rears its ugly head. So these estimates we've used (by observation) suggest that its energy (gravity, mass, whatevs) is wrong so there must be other energy/gravity/mass. Am I the only person seeing a problem with this? This whole idea has been attempted before with a planet called Vulcan and it took Einstein to dispel that phenomena, not with more mass, but with a different calculation.
I sit out the back and look at the stars that are an unimaginable size at an unimaginable distance and yet I know they are there because of the photons emanating from them. I don't know what Einstein's Relativity says about all the space between me and the object that the photons are travelling through and whether or not it imparts energy on space-time in its path (like you suggest that my voice does to the atmosphere) but the photon emanating from the object imparts its energy directly, even though it has no mass right? We call this light energy?
Our sun hits us with a 'solar wind' constantly, which suggests that the vacuum of space is actually full of particles, not empty of them. I think we're missing something fundamental and it's not a sub-atomic particle. But I don't subscribe to the Big Bang newsletter either.
"Am I the only person seeing a problem with this?"
No I already suggested a different calculation that could be added to Einstein field equations to account for this missing energy.
The torque generated by spinning objects.
Basically Einstein depicts a ball on a trampoline and shows how mass bends space-time.
What I am suggesting is that space time is not only bent but curls/twisted, it spins.
Like the water down the drain, it does not fall strait but it curls depending on the polarity of the place you are at.
So basically everything spins just like the sun, which has been confirmed that it has a spin cycle.
Now if what spins makes space-time curl with it, then there is a torque energy which is not accounted for.
The problem is to identify what is actually spinning and and why?
Kataclismic - "We call this light energy?...Our sun hits us with a 'solar wind' constantly, which suggests that the vacuum of space is actually full of particles, not empty of them. "
Of course light is energy, you can feel its warmth, that is heat!
Yeah outer space is not a perfect vacuum, but it does have a very low pressure (about 4 orders of magnitude lower than the best vacuums humans have managed to produce).
Kataclismic - "A new concept (theory) of negative-energy is the topic for science-fiction writers"
Gravitational potential energy is negative.
Kataclismic - "The question is did it take energy to pass the knowledge and did they receive energy along with it?"
Yeah, when you look under the hood you find energy being moved around, and in the process information is transmitted/received.
I agree with all of you ,it is all about improving the previously known concepts. Infect , I see a great continuity in redefining energy from ancient to modern times. Some defined it religiously ,philosophically and now defining it scientifically. What corrupts religious view is amalgam of politics and racism. People sitting on the heads (top) of religions don't want change to happen. I see science as a religious philosophy which want to enquire about universe with rational approach.
As far as existence of -ve energy is concern it varies drastically on the basis of reference point which we choose during calculations. So its not a problem at all. Similar discussion about vacuum can be seen in this documentary at 7:00 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRu6P9fFkg : BBC Documentary - What Happened Before the Big Bang
Dr. Param's Idea in this documentary is modern improved scientific version of Hindu belief that time is cyclic in nature and life span of universe is somewhere around 4 billion years old.
Wonderfull post, it is nice to see interest in this subject.
hahaha, they admit that the big bang model does indeed predict something coming from nothing though they miss that it is not limited to.
10 years ago this would never happen, I can assure you.
param sing nailed it,
It is a loop of expansion and contraction.
The answer to the question of what started this bouncing?
Simply accept the fact that we are biased to expect things that start and end, just consider for a change something that was already there forever. There was no start, but infinite loops of expansion and contraction.
Like energy, in a closed system it cannot be created nor destroyed but transformed from one form to next.
Smolin hit the mark directly on it's head.
The big bang is the result of a black hole becoming a star(like the sun)going supernova creating a universe.
Also evidence for a black-hole from the other side is that the universe is black and seems to be spherical in nature, maybe we are inside of a black hole indeed.
He is also correct that it is incredibly arrogant to assume that this universe is all there is, but instead it is part of an other bigger universe, so far away that we cannot even see/detect.(goes on like that to infinity big)
He is basically saying that at the center of each star there is a black hole, thus making general relativity correct on the prediction of having infinite mass at the center.(like black holes)
Which would explain the spin cycle our own sun has, which is not accounted for in the standard model of cosmology.
What they are missing is the power of spin added to General relativity(torque) to account/replace for dark matter and dark energy.
The energy which is spinning entire black-holes/solar systems/planets around the bigger black-holes.
No wonder the current formula are missing 90% of the energy other there.
Once torque is added then it can also be applied to the quantum, and strong force and weak force(patches) will be replaced by just gravity+torque.
Nassim Haramein combines all this with his hypothesis which has evidence to support it, in his paper published in 2013.
He considers a proton a mini black-hole and combining torque with general relativity he created a unified theory that works for both the big and the small.
here is his paper for who is interested:
Do read the introduction at least.
Give your suggestion on this:
I wanted to post same on Athiest Republic but its Post section does not support 'TABLE' , What to Do?
You have to understand that the bible was written much later in Hebrew history, before it was only told orally because the Hebrew language was not even invented by that time.
So what you have there is stories being told by word of mouth through generations before finally being put to writings.
(how reliable is that?)
What are these stories or myths?
Basically the same traditions and stories of their ancestors, twisted and adapted to their current culture.(excluding Yahweh related)
Who were their ancestors?
Abraham and his family went to Egypt from where?
(note that the Jews mention all the great people of the time except the most influential and powerful; the Sumerians)
This forces us to conclude that Abraham was a Sumerian that migrated to Egypt.
Guess what, he left Sumer but kept the same myths and culture.
The Flood, Adam and Eve, and more, they all come from even more ancient Sumerian myths.
BTW we actually have the original of those myths "written in stone".
So the bible seen as a rehashing of those myths suddenly makes sens.
"12. “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,” This verse clearly gives some important indications:
1. “ONE OF US” how many GODs are there?"
According the Sumerian tablets the gods were the creators and come from outer space. They were called gods but the god attribute was not as one would think of today.
They saw them as some sort of superior beings that gave mankind everything.
"2. God had feeling of insecurity as Adam has knowledge of good and evil, now if he become immortal, he will become “one of us”."
Yes basically the Sumerians were talking about an ethical problem like we face even today.
creating cow clone is one thing(dolly the cow), but creating a human clone is an other thing entirely.
(how the Jews turned an ethical problem in an "Immortal" one is understandable)
"3. Does only two these two qualities make him equal to god? What about other qualities (omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing)."
"(omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing)" Most, if not all of those are things Christianity introduced much later in history.
God never had those attributes before Christianity came along.
Actually according to the old testament Yahweh was very human like, he ate, drank, smelled, walked, fought a fist fight(and lost lol) and even stepped on shit.
With normal user level access making a table like that in the forums will be basically impossible.
It is interesting, but fix the typos :)