Yeh, depressing at first isn't it? Just when I was feeling foot loose and fancy free as an atheist, I encountered personal evidence that this was not the case. What a shock and disappointment.

Oh crap, I thought, I may have to do this again or pay off some karmic debt down the line.... I guess I better straiten my self up and clean up my act a little. There is no escaping life. That could be just a temporary illusion.

But the up side is~~ Now I can party hardy for eternity!!
Let the games begin!!

It is REALLY tough to communicate about religion when you have things like this:

American Heritage College Dictionary – Fourth Edition:

Pantheism –

1) A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2) Belief in and worship of all gods.

The first one says “There is only one god and he is all and all is him.”

The second one says “There are multiple gods and I worship all of them.”

No wonder religious discussions too often end up at “agreeing to disagree” (at best)



Per the same dictionary, Atheism is defined as “1a) Disbelief in or denial of existence of god or gods” (definition 1b is similar enough not to matter) But that doesn’t rule out a belief in anything else – specifically “spiritual entities that are not gods”

So you could technically be an atheist and still believe in an afterlife.

However, materialism is defined as “The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena”. This sounds more like the “poof when you die” belief than does the term “atheism”.


It would be nice if we had a sticky topic that contained nothing but definitions that we could all refer to to know what we’re all talking about.


Just some thoughts.

I personally don't like to have concrete definitions for words. I'd rather just ask the person what they mean.

I agree that words are abstract. That's their very nature. Most good dictionaries will give serveral different meanings for a word. And if you look the same word up in a professional dictionary that caters to a particular field of study they will have their own specific definitions for it.

I agree that many people use the term 'atheism' to mean a disbelief in a 'deity' but they can still believe in a spirituality.

I personally prefer to use the term 'atheism' to mean that there is no spiritual aspect to nature at all.

It seems to me that as soon as a spiritual aspect is allowed, then you've got some sort of religion (thus it's not atheism, IMHO).

But I do know that a lot of so-called 'athiests' use that term yet they actually believe in a spiritual aspect of reality. So from my point of view they aren't 'true atheists', they are just misusing the term.

My sister does this. She calls herself an atheist, but allows for the possiblity of a spiritual plane of existence.

She perfers to use the term 'atheist' so that Christians have no question about her stance.

Well, let's face it, Christianity is mainstream in America, and to say that a person is 'agnostic' just makes the Christians think they are 'undecided' and thus a target for proselytizing!

So she finds it much more practical and useful to just tell them outright that she's an atheist. They usually are quite put off by that and will just go away.

So there are practical reasons for using these terms too I suppose.

I know where your sister is coming from. I can relate. I often just insist Im an "atheist" to get out of a potential "militant conversion" or a lot of proselytizing. Its just easier in many cases. Not that the word "atheist" will automatically ward them off like presenting a necklace of garlic to a vampire, but it tends to buy me enough time to make my escape.

I hate American Heritage Dictionary. It was written by idiots.

The only dictionary I have any respect for is Webster's.

JB

Since I'm late, I'll comment on the original question, and apologize for interupting.


All I really wanted to know, with regards to quantum mechanics is this:

Will a quantum mechanic fix my car at a cheaper rate than a newtonian mechanic?

I was just thinking today about what atheist means. I have many spiritual beliefs but I'm thinking there probably isn't a God in the true sense of the word. (One who others worship etc.) Neither do I think there is one single entity that created everything.

There may be an asshole in charge somewhere, but its possible that he or she is elected into office or just took the job because nobody else wanted it.

Telling people I am agnostic for me just says: "I don't know, and I doubt if you can prove anything."

People have their own reactions to words.

When someone tells me they are atheist, it implies: "Don't bother me with your religion.. They could also be saying: "I think anyone who believes in anything they can't see is an idiot."

But most importantly an atheist is saying: "Nobody is going to tell me how to live my life and I don't intend to worship any invisible God."

A person who says he is "agnostic" is saying: "Don't know, don't care, I'm too busy living life.

Or how about "It's not that I think you're an idiot, I just doubt that you're right about there being a God."

A person who says he is "spiritual but not religious .. is saying: "I don't go to church, I don't bow the the authority of any religion but I am not a closed minded asshole atheist. I am open minded enough to believe in ghosts perhaps, I'm open to sex magic, or: I may have attended a seance or two.

People who are very religious don't describe themselves that way. They just say "Christian" or even "Born again Christian" or "Catholic" or "Muslim" or whatever the name of their religion is.

But naming your religion does not say much about you, because it just speaks of the social club you identify with, it does not speak of your true beliefs.

JB

Are you kidding?

If you can get a Newtonian mechanic to fix your car you're much better off. The problem is that Newtonian mechanics can't fix modern day cars.

All they know how to do anymore is order parts and give you the probabilities of when they might appear!

Now days you need a computer geek to fix your car what with all of these new gadgets in them. They just don't make cars like they used to, simple.

Now days, cars will tell you where you are, look around corners, show you a map, call the police if you have a wreck,
scream when they are being broken into, and even call your cell phone and some will even see the road and actually drive you around automatically.

JB

Yeah really.

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the Christians ever succeeded in converting the whole world to "Christianity" that would just be the start of the real Holy Wars.

Christians seem to hate each other more than they hate non-believers.

The existence of non-believers is the only thing that keeps the Christians from killing each other.

Although sometimes they can't even restrain themselves in that regard.

It's a bloodthirsty religion. All about blood. Blood, blood, blood.

Yuck.

Interesting. I feel pretty much the exact opposite. I am most fond of the appendix of indo-european roots in the American Heritage. I don't care much for Websters or World Book or Funk & Wagnalls. Although I do like the Oxford Concise, and If I had bothered to learn the pronuciation key for the OED, that would probably be my favorite.

Bit of a dictionary fetishist are ya? I think I have Webster's here somewhere and it's water damaged. Its all I have owned since college. I feel terribly inadequate in your presence.

If one person writes “pantheism” meaning def. 1, and another reads it thinking def. 2, you have an instant misunderstanding. The two can spend a long time arguing and debating and never coming to an agreement, simply because they started with two different premises. I’m not saying that there MUST be a fixed set of definitions that EVERYONE MUST adhere to. I’m just saying that the absence of agreed-upon definitions can (and has) easily lead to misunderstandings. And misunderstandings, at the very best, decrease the efficiency of communication. And at worst … well … the worst can approach the cataclysmic.

It's actually more of a "word fetish". And ya gotta admit that dictionaries are just about the best place there is if you're really jonesin' for a word fix!!!

I am not sure where the information has been gathered from which would support the above.

Misunderstandings lead to unreliable conclusions.

In fact, the experiments have been performed and documented which use a very low intensity of light so that only a single photon(particle) at a time would go through. Now, obviously, the photon could only go through one or the other slit, in addition to this the intensity is so low that a photographic plate is required to record and measure the results. After enough single particles(photons) have gone through either slit then the image builds up and the same interference pattern is exhibited. Oddly enough!!



Does this require an "ether" for the waves to travel upon??



What problems??? lol

Sounds to me like this theory ignores the fact that particles do indeed exist...


I am still looking for any definite answers in quantum mechanics, but it seems to me to have just led to confusion in the scientific community...

The definite answer in quantum mechanics is that there cannot be any definite answer.

That is the answer Michael.

That's what quantum mechanics is telling us. That our old notions of cause and affect (and definite answers) goes out the window.

Poof! Newtonian thinking is over.

Period.

You're still looking for concrete answers but this is precisely what quantum mechanics is stating does not exist.

The world runs on magic. Period.

Newtonian thinking cannot save the day.

It's extremely difficult to accept but that's what it's all about.

If you could come up with a 'definite' answer to quantum mechanics (that fits in with Newtonian physics) then we'd be the man!

But that ain't gonna happen because it's already been proven to be impossible.

Any "answer" must necessarily be non-Newtonian.

There can be no 'concrete answer' in the standard sense of the term.

Although some people will argue otherwise. For example some people claim that there are infinitely many 'parallel universes' that interact with our. Given these added dimensions they claim that they can explain everything using standard newtonian physics (plus relativity of course).

But the problem is that they need to postulate an infinity of parallel universes. Universes in which you live every possible outcome.

That's a lot of outcomes. Especially considering that this would need to be taking place on a quantum scale. Every second of your day would be filled with an infinity of possibilities. All possiblities would need to come true.

Thus there would need to be infinities upon infinities of parallel universes.

It's just not a plausible explanation IMHO.

You could just give up on cause and effect. But then Newtonian thinking goes out the window for sure.

I do have an explanation for it all. But it's a mathematical explanation not a physical one.

Besides it's not important.

The only important thing is that you enjoy life. It's not important to figure out how it works.

What's the difference?

When you love someone it doesn't matter whether atoms exist or not.

It is a new theory and probably has not been confirmed by the whole of the scientific community, so I doubt that you will find any text books about this stuff that I am posting.



The wave theory of light did collapsed when experiments were made with very weak light hitting photomultipliers: as the light got dimmer and dimmer, the photomultipliers kept making full sized clicks - there were just fewer of them.

Light “behaves” as particles. This state of confusion was called the 'wave/particle duality' of light. (Richard Feynman, 1985)

The classical wave theory suggested that light could have any wavelength, because any acceleration of the electron (to produce light) was possible. It was therefore thought that an electron would eventually absorb enough energy from these continuous waves of light, such that it would be ejected from a metal plate.

This is not correct, as the photoelectric effect has demonstrated.

The only solution appeared to be the proposal that light must be a particle with discrete energy; and mathematical relationships based upon this idea have proved to be true. But does this prove that light must be a particle?

It does not!

Feynman said NO reasonable model could explain this fact. While this may have been true in 1985, it is no longer true once we understand the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter.

As the Wave Structure of Matter explains, it is this false assumption that light must be a 'photon particle', rather than simply being a discrete energy exchange between standing waves, which leads to much of the strangeness and contradiction of modern quantum theory.





BY "Ether" I assume you mean some sort of field or space? Space is Continuous

There can be no ‘Particles’ because ‘Particles’ require two things - the ‘Particle’ and the Space around the ‘Particle’, thus One Infinite Space must be a continuous medium.
Or as Aristotle says;

'This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and the infinite is indivisible.'
'But indeed even if the One is more like a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be undivided either in quantity or in form.' (Aristotle, 340BC)





Well there are many problems, but I am certainly no quantum scientist so I can't really elaborate on them. Here is a sample from my favorite wave/motion website:

"QED is founded on the assumption that charged particle somehow generate spherical electromagnetic (vector) In and Out waves (Feynman used the terms 'advanced' and 'retarded' waves in his PhD Thesis of 1945).

This explains why Feynman had such success and such failure at the same time, as he had the correct spherical wave structure of matter, but he continued with two further errors, the existence of the particle, and the use of vector electromagnetic waves (mathematical waves of force), rather than using the correct scalar 'quantum' waves.

The solution to these problems was first found by Milo Wolff (1986) in his pioneering work on the Wave Structure of Matter.

Wolff realized that there are no solutions for spherical vector electromagnetic waves, and he had the foresight to try using real waves, which are scalar (described by one quantity, their wave amplitude, as discovered by Quantum Theory).

He then discovered that when one spherical standing wave was moving relative to another the Doppler shifts gave rise to BOTH the de Broglie wavelength of Quantum Theory AND the Mass (Frequency, where E=hf) increase of Einstein's Special Relativity.

Thus in the one equation he had deduced the two observed phenomena due to relative motion, which respectively found central parts of both Quantum Theory and Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

This then led to his further work on the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter and his explanation of many of the problems of modern physics."


I am still looking for any definite answers in quantum mechanics, but it seems to me to have just led to confusion in the scientific community...


If you are still looking for "definite" answers you might consider becoming a quantum scientist. Or you can spend some time on this website. I find it very interesting.

His theories probably have not been accepted by mainstream science. But then, they always seem to move a little slow.


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

From the link you provided JB:



It's not quite that simple. The waves are quantized in a way that cannot be understood using classical ideas of physics.

To just say that everything is waves doesn't solve the problem. Physics aren't that stupid. They love waves!

In fact Erwin Schrodinger described the wave aspect of quantum mechanics. But the solutions to his equation are necessarily discrete. It is that 'quantum jumping' that flies in the face of pure wave theories.

Without a doubt there is a 'quantum' nature to the universe. That's what's being ignored by everyone.

Our very mathematics is not quantized!

Our mathematical forumism is based on a continuum. But the universe is not continuous. It is quantized.

Until we correct the flaw in our formal mathematics physics is dead in the water because it relies on mathematics.

It's actually our mathematical formalism that is screwing up the results in quantum physics.

The empty set has to go. That's where the problem lies in mathematics.

Science has come to an impasse. It is based on a flawed mathematics. It can't move forward until we fix up the mistakes of Georg Cantor and other mathematicians. That's where the real problem lies.

We'll never be able to understand a quantized universe by trying to apply a mathematics that based on the idea of a continuum.

Mathematics needs to change. And the problem lies in set theory and with the formal definition of the number one!



I'm pretty sure that Einstein was referring to the self-centered philosophies of religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam when he made this statement.

Well its about time you showed up.

I think Einstein was referring to the little self that I call the "ego." I think he was waaay past worrying about religious ideas.

Just my impression.