Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Until the atheist starts pondering how we got here and what is our purpose.
Forsooth, thou art a dunderhead! "Ye" is you-plural. Usually nominative (as you blunderingly said), but I've seen it in the accusative also. I laugh at thee and thy kin. All of ye.
In order to run for office. : )
Chaucer was middle-English. Beowulf was Old English to you Johnny-come-lately Shakespearean jumpers on the latest bandwagon.
Besides, Beowulf was gay.
I've read Beowulf in English which was right across the page from the original incomprehensible gobbledygook. Just because he had trouble killing Grendel's mother doesn't mean he was a limp-wrist. She was pretty tough for a senior citizen.
In a momentary lapse while the constant appears graspable. And its name now and then is Grendel, venus, or Lady Liberty.
It has been suggested that any quantum particle, once in contact with another particle of its type, retains that connection even when separated, even if the two particles are thereafter removed to “locations” at opposite “ends” of the universe.
Compare with James Frazer, The Golden Bough, 1922:
IF we analyse the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed.
But it must, dear AG. Love dances and duels.
Great question, jennyp. Dean Overman (in A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization) proposed this answer:
"Where do the laws of physics (and the resulting laws of chemistry) come from? If we say that they have always existed, we know that the laws as presently understood break down at Planck time. If string theory is true, then we have the issue of 10 or, if the cause of the universe is outside the dimensions of the universe, 11 dimensions. Most of the laws required for life only work in four dimensions. If the ten dimensions split into four [the "normal" 3 of space and 1 of time] and six extra space dimensions [the "little curled up ones"] at Planck time, then the laws as we know them could not have existed in the period when there were 10 dimensions. What was the logic or intelligence that existed prior to space and time?" [emphasis added]
Looks like we still need the singularity to "tell" the dimensions how to split (so to speak) so the physical laws can come into operation. Being outside of space and time, it would be the hypothetical 11th dimension of string theory. I think the same situation would hold, were we to posit a 5-dimensional theory -- the four of ordinary space-time, plus a 5th timelike dimension, without the extra 6 compactified space dimensions of string theory.
Though physics is certainly looking at these problems, right now all we can do is speculate about what might be possible. It'll be fascinating to see how dimensional theory develops!
BTW I tend to give Darwinism a hard time because of its utter neglect of consciousness, not so much because its world view is Newtonian. Heaven knows, Newton's laws still work great at the macrolevel, on scales in between the very, very small of the quantum world, and the very, very large where Einsteinian relativity is king. And Newton's Second Law would appear to have indispensable relevance at all levels of physical nature; among other things, it is the law that gives us "the arrow of time"....
And yet it's been suggested that consciousness is a universal principle in its own right; and that self-aware consciousness (i.e., human consciousness) may actually be a key component of cosmic development. Another really wild idea! Yet some physicists actually take that idea seriously, and are looking for ways to test it.
Thanks so much for writing, jennyp.
In your post to betty boop, you said:
In sum, from the frame of reference of an extra time dimension, all of 4D is seen at once and our timeline is actually a plane. To us, the movie is being viewed one frame at a time – from the extra time dimension, the movie is seen at once. So to answer your question, from our 4D frame of reference we would see our choice of coordinates as a singularity. But from the extra time dimension frame of reference, that would not be true.
And, as you so aptly observe, from the frame of reference of the extra time dimension – since our perceived timeline is actually a plane – there is no required cause/effect relationship, the requirement is an illusion of 4D.
Finally, there are several types of string theories as briefly described below. For a very good explanation of the differences and the duality issue which gives rise to the extra time dimension, you might want to read this article: Dualities and Strings, Space and Time. Here’s an excerpt:
Here's the list of basic string theories from Superstringtheory.com - The Basics [notes on d-branes in brackets by me]
Bosonic – 26 dimensions – Only bosons, no fermions means only forces, no matter, with both open and closed strings. Major flaw: a particle with imaginary mass, called the tachyon
Type I – 10 dimensions - Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with both open and closed strings, no tachyon, group symmetry is SO(32) [d-branes 1, 5 and 9]
Type IIA – 10 dimensions - Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions spin both ways (nonchiral) [d-branes 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8]
Type IIB – 10 dimensions - Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions only spin one way (chiral) [d-branes –1, 1, 3, 5, and 7]
Type HO – 10 dimensions - Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type HE – 10 dimensions - Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is E8 x E8
In a word, quaint.
To think that the concepts of Darwinian Evolution, Newtonian Physics, Relativity, et aliae doxae a priori ad infinitum, should share the grail of a universal commons. Kant, like the proverbial moth to a flame, dared approach it and--we must admit now with our wiser wisdom--he did so with the ignorance of an insect driven by forces and motors. He infused his approach with stolen goods disguised by transformation of his signature wing: transcendence. After Kant, everything was Nature dancing with a divinized Ego. With transcendence immanentized, Pope's dictum became the law, "presume not God to scan" and in obedience they are happy to no longer have to study man.
Hi Alamo-Girl
Did you read the criticism of Hoyle’s calculations that I posted earlier? Apparently, it’s a gross distortion of biogenesis. Good luck in your investigation.
BTW, do you still have your Clinton Deaths web site? Way back, I posted a link to you of a deaths list, probably in late 98 or early 99. I don’t know whether if was before or after you created your much more extensive one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.