[WMCoolmon]

Einstein is a bad example. He wasted his last 30 years trying to disprove quantum mechanics cause "God does not play dice"

The full quote, according to Wikipedia, is: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice."

Here's an excerpt from a public lecture by Stephen Hawking:

Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Furthermore, if Wikipedia can be believed, the Einstein vs Bohr debates on the subject were not quite as useless as you make them out to be, and helped form the groundwork for Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, if nobody had ever tried to refute the theory, I would be concerned about its accuracy.

Now this is all from about ten minutes from research, but what this suggests to me is that Einstein wasn't saying that QM isn't true because "God doesn't play dice", he was saying that "God doesn't play dice" because QM isn't true. Again according to Wikipedia, he did revise his views through the debates, so it would seem to me that he was actually reaching a conclusion based on evidence, rather than religious opinion (However wrong that conclusion may have been).

The US is a much more secular nation than the countries that do have Jihads. There's no reason to believe that it couldn't easily swing round to being a theocracy again if the conditions were right. The so called "Moral Majority" would love to see that happen.

If we are truly that close to the edge, then how do we know that we aren't the sheep? How do we know that we aren't the ones who are morally flawed?

But I don't believe that a true theocracy would reasonably occur in the near future in the United States. There are so many denominations in the US that it would not be as easy as you suggest; if Catholics took control, how would non-Catholics know that the Catholics wouldn't make laws against them? And vice-versa if non-Catholics took control. And I don't see Muslims, Jews, etc just accepting that state of things.

NB: According to the 2001 Statistical Abstract, 1/5 of the total population is non-Christian. (Note that the statistics are based on a representative random telephone survey of the Continental US.)

[karajorma]

Food bank? Helping the poor? What do you think the Church does, and hte church-going people? Church encourages you to help your fellow man, organizes shelter and food for the homeless, education and help for the 3rd world countries.

I'll agree that the church does a lot of work dealing with the poor and hungry.

That said the church also does a lot of work preventing the teaching of sex ed in the 3rd world and preventing the distribution of contraceptives. Meaning that there are more poor and hungry.

Hard to say to what degree that balances out.

[Cyker]

I'm fairly sure Einstein was being metaphorical, to put across his point in ways stupid people (i.e. everyone) can at least grasp if not understand. So that quote doesn't really have much relevence in this waste-of-electrons discussion

One thing about Einstein was that he could take high-level physics and general science stuff and, explain it in ways that could be understood and made sense.

Not many people can do that.

[karajorma]

Furthermore, if Wikipedia can be believed, the Einstein vs Bohr debates on the subject were not quite as useless as you make them out to be, and helped form the groundwork for Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, if nobody had ever tried to refute the theory, I would be concerned about its accuracy.

There is a large difference between attempting to refute a theory and attempting to invent one of your own against an increasing mountain of evidence that you're wrong.

Now this is all from about ten minutes from research, but what this suggests to me is that Einstein wasn't saying that QM isn't true because "God doesn't play dice", he was saying that "God doesn't play dice" because QM isn't true. Again according to Wikipedia, he did revise his views through the debates, so it would seem to me that he was actually reaching a conclusion based on evidence, rather than religious opinion (However wrong that conclusion may have been).

Here's the BBC Horizon page on a documentary about the very subject.

Einstein's work was underpinned by the idea that the laws of physics were an expression of the divine. This belief led him to think that everything could be described by simple, elegant mathematics and moreover, that once you knew these laws you could describe the universe with absolute accuracy. Einstein loathed the implications of quantum mechanics. It was a clash of ideologies.

The conflict reached a crescendo in the late 1920s at the Solvay Conference in Belgium. There Einstein clashed with the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr over the nature of the universe. Einstein constantly challenged Bohr over the implications of quantum mechanics, but never budged from his belief that "God does not play dice", meaning that nothing would be left to chance in the universe. To which the quantum mechanics community replied: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice."

The US is a much more secular nation than the countries that do have Jihads. There's no reason to believe that it couldn't easily swing round to being a theocracy again if the conditions were right. The so called "Moral Majority" would love to see that happen.

If we are truly that close to the edge, then how do we know that we aren't the sheep? How do we know that we aren't the ones who are morally flawed?

Since when has holding a minority view made you wrong? Try looking at the quality of the people who do want a theocratic nation.

But I don't believe that a true theocracy would reasonably occur in the near future in the United States. There are so many denominations in the US that it would not be as easy as you suggest; if Catholics took control, how would non-Catholics know that the Catholics wouldn't make laws against them? And vice-versa if non-Catholics took control. And I don't see Muslims, Jews, etc just accepting that state of things.

NB: According to the 2001 Statistical Abstract, 1/5 of the total population is non-Christian. (Note that the statistics are based on a representative random telephone survey of the Continental US.)

Near future, no. 30-40 years, very easily if the conditions were right.

[castor]

Are you suggesting that atheism is a religion? Or implying that atheist don't think?

No, if I had also claimed that all people think alike I would be suggesting/implying that.
I was just stating a recipe for achieving the goal that was set (which clearly is not worth the price paid, IMO)

[TrashMan]

I'll agree that the church does a lot of work dealing with the poor and hungry.

That said the church also does a lot of work preventing the teaching of sex ed in the 3rd world and preventing the distribution of contraceptives. Meaning that there are more poor and hungry.

Hard to say to what degree that balances out.

Pffft...
Why do you think people there have so many children?.. they ain't got nothing else to do the whole day
B.t.w. - condoms you get aren't 100% effective, and the 3rd world countries don't really get top-of-the-line stuff.
Half the shipments are prolly company rejects.
So yeah, abstinance is the only sure method.

B.t.w. - the Church isn't preventing sex education there, it just doesn't organize any itself.

[TrashMan]

Since when has holding a minority view made you wrong? Try looking at the quality of the people who do want a theocratic nation.

Becoause the minority is never wrong?

[karajorma]

When did I say that?   I simply said that the number of people who believe something has no validity on whether or not it is the truth.

B.t.w. - the Church isn't preventing sex education there, it just doesn't organize any itself.

The Vatican has actively spread lies about the effectiveness of condoms against HIV in an effort to prevent their use.

Why do you think people there have so many children?.. they ain't got nothing else to do the whole day

I'd be willing to bet that they do more work than you do.

[Goober5000]

It's worth noting the events that took place scarcely a month ago...

Something old is playing out. On one side, shaved heads and ranks of red robes; on the other, frightened and angry young men in uniforms, banging their batons against their riot shields and raising their rifles. Barricades, plumes of smoke from teargas canisters. And Buddhist monks, wearing sandals, staring down the guns.

It's very moving. But more than that, it is food for thought. This - these monks staring down the guns - presents a problem for a militant secularist in the Dawkins or Hitchens mould. I don't mean that it has any bearing on the argument about whether there is or is not a God. Buddhist monks don't worship anything resembling the God on whom the Dawkins guns are trained in any case; and the fact that they stare down the guns doesn't make a difference to whether or not what they believe is true.

But stare down those guns they do - and their behaviour does have a strong bearing on the question of whether religious belief "poisons everything", as Hitchens puts it. I'd submit, as an irreligious bystander, that one of the things that helps those monks hold the line is faith. The form that their resistance takes is shaped by that faith - and it is uniquely powerful.

People can argue theory and philosophy all day, but when the rubber meets the road, nothing beats empirical evidence.

[Desert Tyrant]

Why do you think people there have so many children?.. they ain't got nothing else to do the whole day

Clarify, because it sounds like babble at the moment.

B.t.w. - condoms you get aren't 100% effective, and the 3rd world countries don't really get top-of-the-line stuff.

Uh... no, it's not.  But it's among the safest methods of birth-control their is.  (IIRC the actually sucess rate of a condom is something like 90%.. gee, what a fun conversation )

Half the shipments are prolly company rejects.

Proof? 

So yeah, abstinance is the only sure method.

No, it's not.  Condoms are quite safe, and even if they break... that's when you get the Morning After pill which virtualy makes very much sure that the lady-friend (the patent's mine, buddy) doesn't get preggers.

EDITed to fix my post.

[Bobboau]

it's actually more like 98%

[WMCoolmon]

(Einstein stuff)

If we say that Einstein has a big enough ego to believe that he can know the mind of God, why can't we say that it was his ego that kept him from saying that he was wrong and Bohr was right?

Since when has holding a minority view made you wrong? Try looking at the quality of the people who do want a theocratic nation.

You're saying that the US is going to become a theocracy, against the wishes of atheists. Ergo, the people who practice atheism will fail to get what they want, while the people who practice religion will have been successful.

If atheism leads to failure in the long run, while religion leads to success, how does that make atheism 'better' than religion? Or in the context of discussion, why should everyone convert to atheism if the only people who can use it effectively are a minority?

[Ghostavo]

Are you suggesting that atheism is a religion? Or implying that atheist don't think?

No, if I had also claimed that all people think alike I would be suggesting/implying that.
I was just stating a recipe for achieving the goal that was set (which clearly is not worth the price paid, IMO)

Explain that a little better. How would removing religion, which is based on dogma, remove the ability to think?

[castor]

No, I wrote that removing the ability to think would remove religion, not the other way around.
Also, what is dogma? Nothing but a creation of the human mind - its ability to think.

[TrashMan]

B.t.w. - the Church isn't preventing sex education there, it just doesn't organize any itself.

The Vatican has actively spread lies about the effectiveness of condoms against HIV in an effort to prevent their use.

any proof thay are lies? Company testing doesn't realyl mean squat, FYI.

Also, even assuming the Church did blow the numbers out of proportion, how does that prevent sex education? Anyone can still set up a school there and tell the people whatever he wants..more or less.

[Ghostavo]

No, I wrote that removing the ability to think would remove religion, not the other way around.
Also, what is dogma? Nothing but a creation of the human mind - its ability to think.

My mistake then.

But the thing is that removing the ability to think would also remove a lot of things so that in itself is not much of a point. Unless you wanted to start a debate about the merits of religion on the human mind, in which case, dogma restricts critical thinking (which was my earlier point).

[karajorma]

If we say that Einstein has a big enough ego to believe that he can know the mind of God, why can't we say that it was his ego that kept him from saying that he was wrong and Bohr was right?

Because that wasn't what was going on. Einstein made the classic faith vs science mistake. He took the world as being a certain way on faith and then tried to scientifically prove he was correct. His opposition was not based on the fact he thought his theory was correct. He knew it was deeply flawed and he spent 30 years trying to find where the flaws were. Had it simply been a matter of ego I doubt he would have accepted that the theory was deeply flawed.

Einstein kept trying to prove that the universe was deterministic because he believed it was against an increasing amount of evidence that is wasn't. And the reason he believed that is because he thought that God wouldn't do something like that. In other words he followed his faith rather than the scientific method.

Since when has holding a minority view made you wrong? Try looking at the quality of the people who do want a theocratic nation.

You're saying that the US is going to become a theocracy, against the wishes of atheists.

Incorrect. I've said that it could become a theocracy. That's very different. It could also become more secular. My argument is in response to those who think it could never become a theocracy.

Ergo, the people who practice atheism will fail to get what they want, while the people who practice religion will have been successful.

If atheism leads to failure in the long run, while religion leads to success, how does that make atheism 'better' than religion? Or in the context of discussion, why should everyone convert to atheism if the only people who can use it effectively are a minority?

The subject of the discussion is whether the world would be a better place if everyone has converted to atheism. If that happened there wouldn't be any religion so your argument makes little sense.

any proof thay are lies? Company testing doesn't realyl mean squat, FYI.

The Vatican claimed that the HIV virus was small enough that it could pass straight through condoms. There is no scientific evidence of that besides a very dodgy done by the Vatican itself. Every single other piece of scientific literature on the subject says the exact opposite.

So we're not talking about faulty condoms and the like. They flat out claimed that no condom protects against HIV.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/health/main608255.shtml

Also, even assuming the Church did blow the numbers out of proportion, how does that prevent sex education? Anyone can still set up a school there and tell the people whatever he wants..more or less.

Anyone can. But if the priest is telling you not to use condoms and you trust priests why would you believe the other side?

[castor]

No, I wrote that removing the ability to think would remove religion, not the other way around.
Also, what is dogma? Nothing but a creation of the human mind - its ability to think.

Unless you wanted to start a debate about the merits of religion on the human mind, in which case, dogma restricts critical thinking (which was my earlier point).

Not at all, I agree there. It is just the idea of "removing all religions" which I find futile.

[NGTM-1R]

My mistake then.

But the thing is that removing the ability to think would also remove a lot of things so that in itself is not much of a point. Unless you wanted to start a debate about the merits of religion on the human mind, in which case, dogma restricts critical thinking (which was my earlier point).

There's more than one kind of dogma, too. Shall we eliminate political idealogy as well while we're at it? That too would be a worthwhile, perhaps even more greatly worthwile, act in this context of making the world a better place. Unfortunately you can't. Dogma springs from the principles one holds, and hence comes from within for at least the first few people who accept it. Eliminating it is not something that can be made workable with humans.

While personally athesistic myself (you know the joke about "my karma ran over my dogma"? It works in surprisingly literal fashion here.), I find the concept of removing religion from the equation repugnant because, when you get right down to it, no matter the possibly Mein Kampf-esque implications of saying it, you will not make the world a better place by removing all opposing viewpoints. If nobody ever challenges your way of thinking, it becomes much easier to go wrong and not realize it.

[Snail]

Removing all religion... Not going to happen in the near future IMO.