man you have a hard time on the internet don't you. Please learn to speak American. It is way different from English. You are suppose to give your heart to Jesus and keep back a little of your brain in case you need it later.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles are Evidence the Universe Was Created
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
I wish you a peaceful night or day, whatever time zone you may be in. I am constantly trying to improve and ALWAYS open to criticism and suggestions. Thanks I will work on my English
By the way, it is "you are supposeD to..."
By the way, it is "you are supposeD to..."
man you have a hard time on the internet don't you. Please learn to speak American. It is way different from English. You are suppose to give your heart to Jesus and keep back a little of your brain in case you need it later.
A/The most believable GOD!
http://hollowverse.com/michio-kaku/
As a physicist, Kaku is an advocate and supporter of string theory–the idea that our universe is but one of many universes in the “multiverse.”3 But in terms of spirituality, Kaku is clearly a pantheist. He finds the universe beautiful and wondrous in its symmetry and natural order. For example, he has called the Grand Canyon a Cathedral4 and marveled at the patience and time it took for water to carve it.
Kaku also seems to regard physics as its own sort of religion. When interviewed, he frequently says: “We physicists believe this, we physicists believe that.” When it comes to religion, he tends to use Einstein as his mouthpiece. Kaku said:
When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe.5
Last edited:
This is an April fools joke in June. Tachyons don't exist. Dr. K must be bored and has decided to troll.
Last edited:
It's faith in nonsense that's dangerous. If your faith is in something other than nonsense, such as in the second law of thermodynamics, than it may not be dangerous.Nonsense. There are millions of faithful Christians (still a minority out of all who call themselves Christians) who do act on their belief. Very actively act indeed. They made a huge difference in this world, and that to the better. Of course there are also the Ghandis of the world, only difference is for each Ghandi there are 100 faithful Mother Theresa type Christians around. Unfortunately we shall never know because they won't ever brag about the sacrifices they make.
The big difference between Jesus and most other religious leaders is that Jesus preached love and self sacrificial service which most everyone else did not. And those who did are by selfproclamation of their believers dead. Christians believe Jesus is alive. Why would anyone ever believe in the power or might of a dead god is completely beyond me. Atheism is of course a choice but claiming that acting on any and all religious belief is dangerous I find a thought of inferior quality.
What is this string theory, anyway? I mean how much theory can there be associated with a string? If it's a G String I sort of understand how that can be a bit complicated, but requiring an entire "theory" seems like over kill. (I would give this post a "like", but sadly ET would not let me.)
sure but the danger lies in letting everyone define for themselves what is dangerous and what is not. Muslims clearly do not seem to see their religion as being dangerous. But without doubt even atheists knowledgeable of the Koran must come to the conclusion that Islam is all about destroying infidels and unbelievers. The Christian bible teaches the opposite. To love everyone as much as we love ourselves. To love our enemies. To not judge others. Huge difference. Problem lies with who defines what. In the end if things get more extreme I do see a possibility of certain Western nations prohibiting or putting Islam on a black list. And there is some justification in such argument. The US constitution protects religious freedom in the same way as it protects the right to bear arms, BUT when such freedom is abused to infringe on others' freedom then such freedom can be withdrawn. There are many sects and religious movements that are banned in the US or other nations. Why such does not violate constitutional rights is because such sects and religious movements implicitly do not respect the rule of law and constitution.
I do not hate Muslims at all. But when the Koran is to be taken literally then believers are ultimately called to either convert unbelievers or kill them. That is something I cannot respect because it goes against all my life principles.
Equally when people misinterpret the constitution and believe it bestows them with the right to bear assault weapons that are used to ASSAULT and not to defend then I also fight for a ban for such weapons. It is so tiring to argue with people of low intellect who come out again and again and tell us how assault weapons are the best weapons to defend oneself. They never answer the question why then not going a step further and legalizing all other sorts of weapons that are currently banned. And they never answer the question why currently banned weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment but they stubbornly insist assault rifles are. Its a never ending circle of stupefying arguments that are brought up. In the end such people are fortunately not trusted to interpret the constitution and are not in charge of making any decision other than casting their vote.
I do not hate Muslims at all. But when the Koran is to be taken literally then believers are ultimately called to either convert unbelievers or kill them. That is something I cannot respect because it goes against all my life principles.
Equally when people misinterpret the constitution and believe it bestows them with the right to bear assault weapons that are used to ASSAULT and not to defend then I also fight for a ban for such weapons. It is so tiring to argue with people of low intellect who come out again and again and tell us how assault weapons are the best weapons to defend oneself. They never answer the question why then not going a step further and legalizing all other sorts of weapons that are currently banned. And they never answer the question why currently banned weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment but they stubbornly insist assault rifles are. Its a never ending circle of stupefying arguments that are brought up. In the end such people are fortunately not trusted to interpret the constitution and are not in charge of making any decision other than casting their vote.
It's faith in nonsense that's dangerous. If your faith is in something other than nonsense, such as in the second law of thermodynamics, than it may not be dangerous.
oh man, you got me. What is it with yor foreigners anyway?I wish you a peaceful night or day, whatever time zone you may be in. I am constantly trying to improve and ALWAYS open to criticism and suggestions. Thanks I will work on my English
By the way, it is "you are supposeD to..."
sure but the danger lies in letting everyone define for themselves what is dangerous and what is not. Muslims clearly do not seem to see their religion as being dangerous. But without doubt even atheists knowledgeable of the Koran must come to the conclusion that Islam is all about destroying infidels and unbelievers. The Christian bible teaches the opposite. To love everyone as much as we love ourselves. To love our enemies. To not judge others. Huge difference. Problem lies with who defines what. In the end if things get more extreme I do see a possibility of certain Western nations prohibiting or putting Islam on a black list. And there is some justification in such argument. The US constitution protects religious freedom in the same way as it protects the right to bear arms, BUT when such freedom is abused to infringe on others' freedom then such freedom can be withdrawn. There are many sects and religious movements that are banned in the US or other nations. Why such does not violate constitutional rights is because such sects and religious movements implicitly do not respect the rule of law and constitution.
I do not hate Muslims at all. But when the Koran is to be taken literally then believers are ultimately called to either convert unbelievers or kill them. That is something I cannot respect because it goes against all my life principles.
Equally when people misinterpret the constitution and believe it bestows them with the right to bear assault weapons that are used to ASSAULT and not to defend then I also fight for a ban for such weapons. It is so tiring to argue with people of low intellect who come out again and again and tell us how assault weapons are the best weapons to defend oneself. They never answer the question why then not going a step further and legalizing all other sorts of weapons that are currently banned. And they never answer the question why currently banned weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment but they stubbornly insist assault rifles are. Its a never ending circle of stupefying arguments that are brought up. In the end such people are fortunately not trusted to interpret the constitution and are not in charge of making any decision other than casting their vote.
"The Christian bible teaches the opposite. To love everyone as much as we love ourselves. To love our enemies. To not judge others. Huge difference."
This is not entirely accurate. Christians have not jettisoned the Old Testament. The Old Testament message is strikingly different and is dangerous.
It is disingenuous for Christians to criticize the Koran while at the same time not rejecting the Old Testament. Judaism, Islam, and, Christianity have common roots. These three religions are all dangerous religions. All three teach falsehoods.
All religions are the creation of man. The new Testament is full of supernatural events. Modern Christians pick and choose which events they will accept and which they reject. They have in effect updated their religion for modern times. This is simply part of the continuum of man's creating and updating one religion after another. The harm they do is relative to their teachings. Some are nearly innocuous, but none completely so, and some very dangerous. And within each of these major religions sects develop which are more dangerous than the mainstream components.
A person such as yourself is moral not because of religion but despite it. We are one of the few eusocial species. Sociobiologists, see for example E.O. Wilson, recognize that our moral kindness toward members of our own tribe first, and then members of our own species, has evolved in us and is instinctual. Religious beliefs drummed into our heads from a young age can overcome our instinctual moral response to members of our own species. All three of the major religions originating in the Middle East, chiefly on Arabian Peninsula, teach that each is the true religion and that the others are false. They are all three pernicious in that they seek to cut off criticism of their teachings by one means or another and in this way have maintained their falsehoods for many centuries despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In the U.S., where it is not possible to execute people for questioning religious teachings, the methods used are less draconian, but still quite effective. Today's ubiquitous "political correctness" has its origin in the reverence that these religions have traditionally demanded of their followers. Our instinctual, eusocial nature makes it unlikely we will call attention to ourselves by publicly doubting the teachings of our religious leaders.
A Christian is supposed to be someone who wants to be like Jesus. That there are most who just perform lipservice is undoubtedly true. But that does not change the fact that Christianity, aka a lifestyle Jesus would approve of, is most likely the most peace-loving and respectful (careful, I am not saying assimilating or compromising) religious expressions in the world today. Let's not confuse Christians by mouth but let's define Christians as those who act on their faith. I bet even our right-wing friends who are all armed to the teeth are confessing "Christians"
"The Christian bible teaches the opposite. To love everyone as much as we love ourselves. To love our enemies. To not judge others. Huge difference."
This is not entirely accurate. Christians have not jettisoned the Old Testament. The Old Testament message is strikingly different and is dangerous.
It is disingenuous for Christians to criticize the Koran while at the same time not rejecting the Old Testament. Judaism, Islam, and, Christianity have common roots. These three religions are all dangerous religions. All three teach falsehoods.
All religions are the creation of man. The new Testament is full of supernatural events. Modern Christians pick and choose which events they will accept and which they reject. They have in effect updated their religion for modern times. This is simply part of the continuum of man's creating and updating one religion after another. The harm they do is relative to their teachings. Some are nearly innocuous, but none completely so, and some very dangerous. And within each of these major religions sects develop which are more dangerous than the mainstream components.
A person such as yourself is moral not because of religion but despite it. We are one of the few eusocial species. Sociobiologists, see for example E.O. Wilson, recognize that our moral kindness toward members of our own tribe first, and then members of our own species, has evolved in us and is instinctual. Religious beliefs drummed into our heads from a young age can overcome our instinctual moral response to members of our own species. All three of the major religions originating in the Middle East, chiefly on Arabian Peninsula, teach that each is the true religion and that the others are false. They are all three pernicious in that they seek to cut off criticism of their teachings by one means or another and in this way have maintained their falsehoods for many centuries despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In the U.S., where it is not possible to execute people for questioning religious teachings, the methods used are less draconian, but still quite effective. Today's ubiquitous "political correctness" has its origin in the reverence that these religions have traditionally demanded of their followers. Our instinctual, eusocial nature makes it unlikely we will call attention to ourselves by publicly doubting the teachings of our religious leaders.