1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will Vs Determinism
« on: May 29, 2007, 02:11:13 PM »
the answer is easy:
how do i shot web?
how do i shot web?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Actually, if Quantum Mechanics continues to hold true none of us will ever die.
In the Schrödinger's cat experiment, what would happen from the cat's point of view? Would the cat's consciousness be split in two, with one consciousness living and the other vanishing into the sweet hereafter? Or would the cat, having the special status of being an observer, perceive itself as following the more fortunate fork in the quantum road and thus avoid death?
According to the many worlds interpretation, the cat would experience only the worlds in which it exists as a thinking entity after the experiment was held.
Here's a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality ;-"Imagine that a physicist detonates a nuclear bomb beside himself. In almost all parallel universes, the nuclear explosion will vaporize the physicist. However, there should be a small set of alternative universes in which the physicist somehow survives (i.e. the set of universes which support a "miraculous" survival scenario). The idea behind quantum immortality is that the physicist will remain alive in, and thus remain able to experience, at least one of the universes in this set, even though these universes form a tiny subset of all possible universes. Over time the physicist would therefore never perceive his or her own death.
Another example is one provided by quantum suicide, where a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered, or not triggered, by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a fifty-fifty chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct, then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into one or more worlds in which he lives and one or more worlds in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, his consciousness will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die, therefore "proving" himself to be immortal, at least from his own point of view."-
Technically, only the consciousness would continue. That says nothing about the body. Since your consciousness is seated in the brain, there's no need for the rest of your body to exist. Over the years, after enduring impossible survival scenarios, your body will continue to degrade and fall apart as normal.
If Quantum Mechanics is accurate and true then a trillion years from now, only your brain will remain, quivering, spinning through the void, conscious only because of an infinitely improbable sequence of quantum events which lets your synapses keep firing.
The world you know will be gone and dead, your loved ones having passed away around you long ago. You will be alone in the universe, blind and deaf, trapped in your thoughts for all eternity. Such is the dismal fate of every living creature, of every human who has ever lived or ever will live.
Jerry Falwell was a great christain leader and was one of the few people with the courage to stand up to this country's moral and ethical issues. I was sad to learn of such a great soldier of God had died.
Please tell me that's some kind of poorly-constructed joke.
No it wasn't a joke. Falwell was a great religous leader; he did everything he could to stop the decay of this countries morals.
All I say is that you must respect the other side, even if you don't agree with it. Getting angry because someone disagrees with you is just ridiculous, and continuing to do so will bring you nothing but ignorance and disrespect.
Out comes the true EvilToothPaste, that we already see all the time anyway, spouting bollocks. If you and Diego ever bothered to read anyone's posts you would both concede that the original debate is well and truely over and Diego has simply started a new one by carrying on the claim that this is a real religion when the founders don't even claim it to be one.
Can't for the life of me work out how I am trolling this thread. Diego might be though, ever thought of that Captain Comprehension? You're right, opinion based on pretense does not matter which is why yours and Diego's do not matter but mine does. Mine is based on examining the facts you see. That's why I don't go for the Devil's Advocate route at every God Damn opportunity like you and Diego do. Carry on with your head up your arse though.
Yeah but....that's not the topic of debate is it? I see your point entirely but this kid was just taking the piss in class and he got punished for it. A Jew wearing a skull-cap in class is not taking the piss. That's the difference.
It's either one or the other it can't be both.
So it's a joke? Yet you argue he should be allowed to express it as his religion in the classroom? Now I am confused.
In most schools it is not ok to wear hats, yet it is fine for a Jewish person to wear a yammika or a muslim girl to wear a veil? That is what we are discussing. The eyepatch and sword were displayed for religious reasons. The fact that they removed him from the classroom and suspended reeks of religious bias. The first amendment is the first amendment, and it applies here. I think this kid has every right to be pissed off and take action against the school district.
If you really believe his 'religion' was legit, then no amount of discourse will get anywhere. There is no tax-exempt, government list that includes "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". All religions that are viewed as serious, actual faiths, with a following, and actual dogma, rites, and materials, are granted Federal Protections. Spare me.
I'm sorry, I thought that the first amendment protects the right to freedom of religion? Like I've stated before, wearing an eyepatch is no more disruptive then a muslim with a veil on, or a christian with a big old cross on their neck. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Pastafarians in the US then muslims(muslims make up less then .5%). Ontop of this, Pastafarianism has the same intellectual basis as pretty much every other organized religion. So why is it not allowed and the rest are? Sounds like discrimination to me.
Tell that to Dubya, not me. LOL.
I agree that it is stated in the first amendment. The problem here is, the kid was using a false claim of religion to strengthen his defense for his behavior problems at school. Show me the official website, or links to official doctrine, for the 'Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'.
Your basic argument is the saying that he was being persecuted for his religion. And yet, where is this religion? Where are the tabernacles, the meeting places, the ranks of the leadership for his "church". A live journal page and some myspace comments? Please.
In most schools it is not ok to wear hats, yet it is fine for a Jewish person to wear a yammika or a muslim girl to wear a veil? That is what we are discussing. The eyepatch and sword were displayed for religious reasons. The fact that they removed him from the classroom and suspended reeks of religious bias. The first amendment is the first amendment, and it applies here. I think this kid has every right to be pissed off and take action against the school district.
If you really believe his 'religion' was legit, then no amount of discourse will get anywhere. There is no tax-exempt, government list that includes "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". All religions that are viewed as serious, actual faiths, with a following, and actual dogma, rites, and materials, are granted Federal Protections. Spare me.
Public school grounds are not private property. Public schools have to respect the constitutional rights of everyone.
Yeah and other kids have the right to an education without being distracted by an attention-seeker. Going to school dressed as a Pirate is going to cause some level of disruption/distraction and it is entirely within the school's rights to stop it happening. I'm not American and have not ever studied American history so I'm not up on the constitution but I am very much up on common sense and that is what usually prevails. If he was so serious about his made-up religion why doesn't he just create a necklace or a badge or some other small indication of his "faith". He doesn't need an inflatable sword and an eye-patch.
Why should the first amendment apply totally if the kid is on private property? I think they did have the right to punish him. Whether they should have or not is entirely up to them.
Public school grounds are not private property. Public schools have to respect the constitutional rights of everyone.
Actually, they have to follow the code enforced at the federal level for schools. These codes vary by state. I have yet to find a state that allows children to wear inflatable swords and eye patches when both eyes work fine, and it is an institution of learning, rather than how to plunder the 7 seas.
Why should the first amendment apply totally if the kid is on private property? I think they did have the right to punish him. Whether they should have or not is entirely up to them.
There is no evidence that the Jesus in the bible even existed as a real person.There is historical evidence (not Biblical) that Jesus existed.
"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” -Celsus (Second century Greek historian)
"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21
Origen was also a second century philosopher and historian
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."Annals 15 -44
Tacitus was a Roman historian, who wrote this in AD 115.
Keep in mind that Tacitus was not Christian, and Celsus was known to be an opponent of Christianity.
(I wrote this earlier for some other thread, but for the sake of simplicity I just copied and pasted it here)
Tighter gun laws wouldn’t have stopped him and won’t stop people like him.Unless guns were completely outlawed, but I don't agree with that on the basis that I really don't agree with a government infringing on the people's rights. Cho was a nut; that's pretty much been proven. I have my doubts, though, that he would have known where to get a gun if the only place to get them was the black market.