Atheism and Physics are Phenomen of Apostle Peter

[ChristineM]

Peter Simon Laplace was the most influential, most rich, and most talented scientist in the pre-Einstein era, please read his glorious extraordinary brilliant biography.

His social status makes no difference to tj fact that there were atheists in the world of science long before he came along

I have studied Laplace. I have also read the history of science. Perhaps you should do the same

 

[questfortruth]

His social status makes no difference to tj fact that there were atheists in the world of science long before he came along

I have studied Laplace. I have also read the history of science. Perhaps you should do the same

The words and influence of ordinary atheist on Science is near zero. Thus, the voices of some strange people before Laplace's birth have not spoiled the course of Science

 

[Spirit of Light]

The words and influence of ordinary atheist on Science is near zero. Thus, the voices of some strange people before Laplace's birth have not spoiled the course of Science

Sounds like you advocating for the good in atheism Atually many atheists have a lot of good to say so maybe it is not strange you see it too

 

[ChristineM]

The words and influence of ordinary atheist on Science is near zero. Thus, the voices of some strange people before Laplace's birth have not spoiled the course of Science

What is strange about atheiem? Your hated seems to be getting stronger.

How is influencial do you want, how about Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Mod: "No-one on this forum takes you seriously anymore."

Well, thats rude to be told that. But I think for people to understand what's you say you got to make what you're saying more understandable with points you want to discuss or questions to and/or bottom.

But not sure why atheism is your topic of interest but you can't really have good conversation if you don't know what it is

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, thats rude to be told that.

In this case it simply isn't. By now this is an honest attempt to help this person. I get that people can't see or understand this type of thing because "feelings" - but seriously - good luck trying to help anyone struggling with delusions of grandeur in any meaningful way without pushing around a few feelings.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In this case it simply isn't. By now this is an honest attempt to help this person. I get that people can't see or understand this type of thing because "feelings" - but seriously - good luck trying to help anyone struggling with delusions of grandeur in any meaningful way without pushing around a few feelings.

It may be true and the way it was said could have been rephrased to not discredit the OP person for his or her thoughts.

I don't judge people like that so not much I can do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't judge people like that

Your parents must be so proud.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The absurd can not be well defined.

So you think not believing in God is absurd. Well then, why js not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster not likewise absurd? Or unicorns? Or Jewiish lasers being fired at earth from alien spaceships?

To not believe what does not manifest itself in any form is not only not absurd, it is far more likely to be the rational position than belief. Although, for most theists, while they would mostly agreement with me (not believing what is not manifest), they would say "in all cases except for one." For no particular reason that they can provide.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your parents must be so proud.

Well, I don't. Its red flag. Something I picked up easily from upbringing. But I don't judge people negativity intentionally. Once I'm aware I cut it in the nub.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, I don't.

You don't what? You don't "parents so proud"? Or are you back on the "I don't judge people" kick?

Its red flag.

You must be back on the idea that you don't judge people. So what is it an indicator of, do you think? What is this "red flag" that it raises for you when people judge others actions, behaviors or words in a negative light and make their displeasure known? What do you feel that you can count on is further coming from that person that started out as that "Red flag?"

Something I picked up easily from upbringing.

Do you mean by this that your parents told you not to judge others negatively, so you don't? Something like a "if you don't have anything nice to say..." sort of teaching? Or are you saying you had bad experiences with judgment (who hasn't?), and that this left a sour taste in your mouth for being one of the judges yourself?

But I don't judge people negativity intentionally. Once I'm aware I cut it in the nub.

I do. For example... people who blatantly use the worst of curses and hurl them at people in an argument, seemingly as part of their "defense" of themselves. In my opinion, that's cowardly, unproductive behavior that comes forward from the mind of an idiot who may not have the propensity to know any better. A person who likely can't remain calm, rational and logical to save their lives and has no interest in actually resolving any of the issues being raised. That's what I feel of that type of situation... and I can't care whether I "hurt that person's feelings" if I relay this to them. Yes, I have judged their actions, and yes I feel they deserve to hear how ridiculous they appear to someone like me. I don't "cut it in the nub." In my opinion, too many people do... and it is causing all sorts of people to believe that their behaviors are completely acceptable. I honestly think this is exactly why so many people liked Trump... suddenly their racist, or misogynistic, or anti-intellectual tendencies were "in vogue." They could do and say as they liked because hey - even the president was doing it! They weren't minding their p's and q's because when the perceived "highest law in the land" is doing those same things, who is there to call you out, judge you and make you feel ashamed of your behavior? We need people to feel ashamed... we simply need them to if there is any way to cull those types of negative things and thoughts. And if we can keep them at bay long enough, then perhaps the next generation will come through a little more cleansed of them. And then the next after that more so. Call a shovel a shovel, and a spade a spade.

 

[viole]

Mod: "No-one on this forum takes you seriously anymore."
Me: "My proofs for Riemann Hypothesis, Goldbach's, Twin prime conjectures are 25 days now under consideration of most top math journals, surely, I am stupid."

“Simon, son of Jonah, you will be called Peter - the Stone. And on this rock, I will build My Church. " (the Bible). As many as two letters of Peter are in the New Testament. And his acts are in the Book of Acts. Peter is the supreme apostle for the Jews. The Paul for the Gentiles. Hence, Peter-Stone is the cornerstone of the Church.

So, since then everything is based on some kind of stone: The founder of Scientific Atheism is the talented scientist Pierre Simon Laplace. The France name Pierre translates as Peter. That is, Simon-Peter. He told the emperor about God "I didn't need this hypothesis." He was the introducer of atheism as the basis worldview into Scientific Community. Science was atheism-free until Peter Simon Laplace was born. He founded scientific atheism. The Modern Science was founded only after 15-th century. Science in prior times was connected with pagan gods (the texts of pagan thinker Aristotle). After 15-th century and before Laplace's birth, it was Christian Science. Peter Simon Laplace was the most influential, most rich, and most talented scientist in the pre-Einstein era, please read his glorious extraordinary brilliant biography. The words and influence of ordinary atheist on Science is near zero. Thus, the voices of some strange people before Laplace's birth have not spoiled the course of Science.

The founder of the modern scientific picture of the world is the German Einstein. From German: "Stein" - Stone. The "ein" is the usual addition in German: "Einstein = Ein Stein".

Because Einstein's ideas are well supported by observations and experiments, Einstein is truly right.

Proof:

In Einstein's theory for a system of size S, holds not the Einstein equation in its textbook form, but the scientific description contains the value of S. In the limit S=0 the Einstein equations emerge. Hence, any future theory, which has as limit Einstein Equations, coincides with Einstein Theory. Hence, the ideas to generalize Einstein equations using non-locality or non-linearity
[Hehl and Mashhoon in Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 064028; Cooperstock and Tieu in astro-ph/0507619]
are not new physics at all.

The Einstein Equations must emerge in the limit S=0, because of Newton's principle: "I was standing on the shoulders of giants": the new theory must not contradict old theory in the area of its applicability. For low energies holds Newton formulas, for high energies - Einstein. There is no third option because all range of energy is well covered by these two theories.

This explains why Scientific Community continues to search for dark matter particles
and plans to do so indefinitely. My idea is the same particles, but they have no weak interaction [as well as any other "direct-contact" interaction (which are strong and electromagnetic ones)]. Or, more generally: "Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) is a substance that has no weak (or any else) interaction with an ordinary substance." That explains how angels and devils can move through closed walls of houses: angels are made of such invisible matter, which has no interactions with ordinary matter.

Let me guess. That did not pass peer review either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hey stop adding fences, you said scientist and i replied with an atheist scientist.

Anyway, there are a few in here that predate LaPlace
List of atheists in science and technology - Wikipedia

I think it is likely wrong to leave it Lucretius, who wrote De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) probably before 50 BCE. In every way that matters, he was an atheist, not even believing in the survival of "the soul" after the death of the body (as evidence, he cites the fact that our mental factulties follow our physical life, neglible at birth, limited but growing in youth, strong and sophisticated in mid-life, deteriorating in later life to frequent dementia towards the end). We may not be able to call him a "scientist," but he was thinking scientifically, and argued against much of the physics of his day.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't what? You don't "parents so proud"? Or are you back on the "I don't judge people" kick?

Seriously? Does every conversation need to be a battle with words????

You must be back on the idea that you don't judge people. So what is it an indicator of, do you think? What is this "red flag" that it raises for you when people judge others actions, behaviors or words in a negative light and make their displeasure known? What do you feel that you can count on is further coming from that person that started out as that "Red flag?"

That was the whole point-I don't judge people (as people) but you brought the ironic "your parents must be so proud" without clarification (therefore sarcastic) and went off from there.

I've had people that judged me most of my late upbringing and teen life so if I "intentionally" judge (example, call someone stupid for believing in god) that's my own fault. If I think thoughts I can catch it and drop it. It's not more of a mental thing but also a physical thing.

Do you mean by this that your parents told you not to judge others negatively, so you don't? Something like a "if you don't have anything nice to say..." sort of teaching? Or are you saying you had bad experiences with judgment (who hasn't?), and that this left a sour taste in your mouth for being one of the judges yourself?

The latter (trauma).

I judge a person's actions.... take it like a court of law. You are charged because of what you did not who you are. Your actions not your humanity.

I do. For example... people who blatantly use the worst of curses and hurl them at people in an argument, seemingly as part of their "defense" of themselves. In my opinion, that's cowardly, unproductive behavior that comes forward from the mind of an idiot who may not have the propensity to know any better.

A person who likely can't remain calm, rational and logical to save their lives and has no interest in actually resolving any of the issues being raised. That's what I feel of that type of situation... and I can't care whether I "hurt that person's feelings" if I relay this to them. Yes, I have judged their actions, and yes I feel they deserve to hear how ridiculous they appear to someone like me. I don't "cut it in the nub."

In my opinion, too any people do... and it is causing all sorts of people to believe that their behaviors are completely acceptable. I honestly think this is exactly why so many people liked Trump... suddenly their racist, or misogynistic, or anti-intellectual tendencies were "in vogue." They could do and say as they liked because hey - even the president was doing it! They weren't minding their p's and q's because when the perceived "highest law in the land" is doing those same things, who is there to call you out, judge you and make you feel ashamed of your behavior?

We need people to feel ashamed... we simply need them to if there is any way to cull those types of negative things and thoughts. And if we can keep them at bay long enough, then perhaps the next generation will come through a little more cleansed of them. And then the next after that more so. Call a shovel a shovel, and a spade a spade.

Let me ask, are you excluded from this?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Seriously? Does every conversation need to be a battle with words????

When people aren't being clear you mean? Yes... yes that is how this will go.

I don't judge people (as people)

What do you judge them as? Squirrels? Again... clarity. Write for it.

I've had people that judged me most of my late upbringing and teen life so if I "intentionally" judge (example, call someone stupid for believing in god) that's my own fault. If I think thoughts I can catch it and drop it. It's not more of a mental thing but also a physical thing.

I was overweight throughout a large chunk of my teen youth. This also caused a lot of people judging me, calling me names, and treating me poorly. What they didn't have was valid basis for doing so, and they very likely couldn't have articulated or explained why they were doing it even if their lives were at stake. This is basically my whole point. If you CAN articulate, explain and defend your reasons for judging someone's terrible or ridiculous actions as such, then that's a whole different matter, and the perpetrator should be able to explain themselves if they want to wriggle out from under the judgment and/or accusations. And if they can't... then they fail, and they deserved any and all shame they feel as a result of the judgment.

I judge a person's actions.... take it like a court of law. You are charged because of what you did not who you are. Your actions not your humanity.

Yes, and? You think I am judging @questfortruth's humanity or something? I'm seeing a huge pattern in behavior, and I am not adverse to informing this person of it. Full stop.

Let me ask, are you excluded from this?

No. No I am not. Of course I am not. What do you think is going on here?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When people aren't being clear you mean? Yes... yes that is how this will go.

What do you judge them as? Squirrels? Again... clarity. Write for it.

I was overweight throughout a large chunk of my teen youth. This also caused a lot of people judging me, calling me names, and treating me poorly. What they didn't have was valid basis for doing so, and they very likely couldn't have articulated or explained why they were doing it even if their lives were at stake. This is basically my whole point. If you CAN articulate, explain and defend your reasons for judging someone's terrible or ridiculous actions as such, then that's a whole different matter, and the perpetrator should be able to explain themselves if they want to wriggle out from under the judgment and/or accusations. And if they can't... then they fail, and they deserved any and all shame they feel as a result of the judgment.

Yes, and? You think I am judging @questfortruth's humanity or something? I'm seeing a huge pattern in behavior, and I am not adverse to informing this person of it. Full stop.

No. No I am not. Of course I am not. What do you think is going on here?

In this case it simply isn't. By now this is an honest attempt to help this person. I get that people can't see or understand this type of thing because "feelings" - but seriously - good luck trying to help anyone struggling with delusions of grandeur in any meaningful way without pushing around a few feelings.

I'll back track and shorten this by saying it has nothing to do with you and the quote you replied to literally wasn't directed at you. I just noticed that the comment in the OP @questfortruth replied to was rude and uncalled for, and that he or she would do better if they shorten their posts and be clear in their theme and/or questions.

I personally (and this is just talking about me) don't tell people they are idiots, or dumb, or whatever because how how they speak or how they choose to articulate their points.... coming from ALL around the globe, I have no position to do such a thing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I personally (and this is just talking about me) don't tell people they are idiots, or dumb, or whatever because how how they speak or how they choose to articulate their points.... coming from ALL around the globe, I have no position to do such a thing.

And no one is saying you have to. Again... call a shovel a shovel, and a spade a spade. If someone is being demonstrably incoherent, or contradicting themselves or evidence, or they are being hypocritical, or not taking into account pertinent information, or ignoring blatantly obvious items that make their talking points moot... then you tell them so. And you do so without tip-toeing. Or, at least, I do. And you can surely try and make me apologize for it as much you are potentially able to do so. Just know that I will surely come to my own defense, and it may be a harder battle won than just saying "It is wrong to judge!"

 

[questfortruth]

But not sure why atheism is your topic of interest but you can't really have good conversation if you don't know what it is

What is strange about atheiem? Your hated seems to be getting stronger.

So you think not believing in God is absurd.

I see logical contradiction:
1) in the past many atheists used two words to define their position: "No God".
2) now many of them say: "we do not claim, that there is no God." But the same can say any theist.

 

[ChristineM]

I see logical contradiction:
1) in the past many atheists used two words to define their position: "No God".
2) now many of them say: "we do not claim, that there is no God." But the same can say any theist.

Which atheist claim we do not claim, that there is no God. Methinks you are confusing agnosticism and atheiem

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I see logical contradiction:
1) in the past many atheists used two words to define their position: "No God".
2) now many of them say: "we do not claim, that there is no God." But the same can say any theist.

Please try to be more clear. Are you saying that any theist can say "we do not claim that there is no God" (a pretty obvious thing for a theist to try and purposefully make known)? Or are you saying that any theist could say the converse, such as: "we do not claim that there is a God?" If the latter, then you are demonstrably in the wrong on this. Theism is explicitly the belief in a deity, and you can't even call yourself a theist if you don't believe in a god. And if you are saying that you believe, but don't necessarily acknowledge God as a reality or make claims that He is a reality - well then that is just completely and utterly strange. I am not quite sure how that works without conflict.