Atheists & agnositcs: How do you view religious people?

[Castiel]

I may have misintepreted, but I thought that was what vacuum energy was. What is zero-point energy if it isn't energy (or matter) from nothing?

It is the base or ground state of the vacuum, zero point energy in basic terms still has a positive value (rather than nothing).

The problem with this is that anything contained within our universe is not a true representation of an 'absence of anything' (for want of a better term) and we are somewhat reliant on definitions of 'nothing' rather than any absolute definition such as the absence that exists (or doesn't, again with the limitations of human language) outside the universe.

but in essence Vacuum Energy is by definition 'something'. It is widely accepted that the cosmological constant has a non-zero value (based on observations by the Supernova Cosmology Project) and those theories in super-symmetry that require an exact zero value only add to the cosmological constant problem, which AFAIK is still unsolved, but people have some pretty interesting ideas on it.

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Vac&CosmConst-Rev1.pdf

 

[Clarkson]

I have no problem with some religious people, but do so with others. Those that keep to themselves and do not preach at me or try to tell me how this was made by god and that was done by god are fine. Its the ones that do that annoy me, especially when they try to discredit scientific information.

In regards to creationism, of course, its still somewhat hazy even from science's point of view, and I would never claim it is the definitive version, whereas some religious types seem to like to tell me that life on earth being created by god IS the definitive version. A lot of science is theory, granted, but theory that has been arrived at with some thought and possibly 'evidence', so I really struggle to understand how someone can belittle scientific theory but then go on to say they 100% believe some super-being created everything out of nothing

There was recently a religion/science discussion on another forum I frequent, and at one point it turned to creationism. The scientific theory is that the gases in the early atmosphere combined and formed amino acids...from which life developed and grew. (obviously far more detail ). To back this up, there was an experiment carried out whereby these specific gases were combined with whatever else was required (memory hazy..), and to cut things short, the guy created the building blocks of life.

Yet someone is going to tell me this is nonsense and that God did it all?

I cannot grasp their outlook, so apart from these religious debates, I tend to just ignore.

Obviously this is not representative of all religious people...but some of them, I just cannot grasp their logic, or lack of.

(if anyone is interested in the experiment I very poorly described, I can try and find it again)

 

[Castiel]

I have no problem with some religious people, but do so with others. Those that keep to themselves and do not preach at me or try to tell me how this was made by god and that was done by god are fine. Its the ones that do that annoy me, especially when they try to discredit scientific information.

In regards to creationism, of course, its still somewhat hazy even from science's point of view, and I would never claim it is the definitive version, whereas some religious types seem to like to tell me that life on earth being created by god IS the definitive version. A lot of science is theory, granted, but theory that has been arrived at with some thought and possibly 'evidence', so I really struggle to understand how someone can belittle scientific theory but then go on to say they 100% believe some super-being created everything out of nothing

There was recently a religion/science discussion on another forum I frequent, and at one point it turned to creationism. The scientific theory is that the gases in the early atmosphere combined and formed amino acids...from which life developed and grew. (obviously far more detail ). To back this up, there was an experiment carried out whereby these specific gases were combined with whatever else was required (memory hazy..), and to cut things short, the guy created the building blocks of life.

Yet someone is going to tell me this is nonsense and that God did it all?

I cannot grasp their outlook, so apart from these religious debates, I tend to just ignore.

Obviously this is not representative of all religious people...but some of them, I just cannot grasp their logic, or lack of.

(if anyone is interested in the experiment I very poorly described, I can try and find it again)

A scientist created life?, when did this happen?

 

[zipp0r]

You seem to have rather missed my point. You say you're open minded about the things you 'need' to be, but multiverse theories (there are several) are actually rather well advanced and afaik well regarded. You dismissed those as easily as you dismissed the various (and varied) religious allegories.

For example, in general multiverse/parallel universes wouldn't exist in this universe; that's sort of their definition. So there wouldn't be another you in this universe, however many galaxies away. Rather there would be (are?) infinite 'yous' in infite other universes outside of this one, perhaps branching off at every decision, every pivotal moment (thousands a day, even) throughout your life.

This is current scientific thinking, not religion. You're correct. But your failure to take these into consideration, or show them more than passing regard, rather compounds your original disdain of religious theories I think. Whilst I would agree that institutionalised religion in its various guises may not always be as complete as they could be, I do think they rather posses a kernel of truth. Buddhist cosmology 2,500 years ago was discussing multiverses, atoms, photons and the like before the West barely conceived of science itself.

While the allegorical nature of Abrahamic biblical stories may have become enshrined in local lore and customs, that doesn't mean they weren't a tool for the passing on of knowledge over time; even if they did regrettably become contorted through the ages.

Food for thought, is all.

i got muddled and didnt think you meant outside of ours.
so you think that next to the universe we are in, there is another ? problem is the universe is quite big so not easy to see outside it ? there is a possibility that there were more big bangs and space out there may be infinate and there may well be billions of universes and lots of life. but the exact same life, me on another earth e.t.c nar i just cant see it being true and it should not really be focused on.

i agree the bible is a twisted mess of stories, science and common sense will give you naturally caused explanations for most of the amazing god did this bits. i have got to hand it to them though, that they managed to brainwash so many people into believing this crap and many have faught to their death over it at times. i just cant help but think... idiots :\

 

[Vonhelmet]

A scientist created life?, when did this happen?

People have done it with pre-prepared amino acids or something and under very specific conditions, but it's a far cry from true abiogenesis.

 

[Castiel]

People have done it with pre-prepared amino acids or something and under very specific conditions, but it's a far cry from true abiogenesis.

You are on about Dr Craig Venter and his team, who created a modified version of bacteria from the original DNA sequence.

Hardly creating life exactly, more like recreating it with a watermark. (which is what I think they did)

 

[zipp0r]

You are on about Dr Craig Venter and his team, who created a modified version of bacteria from the original DNA sequence.

Hardly creating life exactly, more like recreating it with a watermark. (which is what I think they did)

they did tests with firing electricty in a mix of clean sealed gases and created slime (primordial soup ?) on the beaker, supposedly thats getting to the stage of where bacteria appeared. im not aware they got any further with it. to me it could be either they somehow appeared by themselves or a meteor could have dropped bacteria into the soup and it went from there. im interested to see which it turns out to be.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You are on about Dr Craig Venter and his team, who created a modified version of bacteria from the original DNA sequence.

Hardly creating life exactly, more like recreating it with a watermark. (which is what I think they did)

Nah, that was the quite recent one, wasn't it? This was an older thing. I think it's this one. I'm misquoting slightly - the point was that they produced amino acids, which can then produce life, apparently, not that they started with them and successfully produced life.

 

[PoD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&feature=player_embedded