Just for kicks! A religion poll; with ONE condition:

[TechnoGuyRob]

You cannot disclose your religious beliefs in this topic. At all. I swear. I'll punch you. Just vote in the poll, but do not discuss any pro/cons, except for maybe light (and boringly objective) conversation.

They are in alphabetical order, so no complaints about that, please.

EDIT: Yes, I know, shame on me. I could've thought out the choices better. Oh well

[austin356]

where dat poll techno

[TechnoGuyRob]

Sorry! VBulletin makes me put it up after I post the topic. ;-)

[axiomata]

Should I vote "Pastafarian"?

LMAO

I think it would be cool to have a subforum of this site dedicated to polls of Ron Paul supporters. They wouldn't be open for comments but they wouldn't sink into the black hole as fast so they could all be voted on.

It'd be useful to get some demographic data of his supporters.

[ctb619]

what's Pastafarian?

[axiomata]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Also, the poll is missing Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other major religions.

[PathIveMade]

I need donation envelopes.. the Business Reply Mail kind... to mail out to customers, friends, family... No luck from HQ or local meetup yet.... any ideas.. PM me!

[Anti-Donkey]

what's Pastafarian?

Someone who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

EDIT: Beaten to it

[happyphilter]

im wondering how many roman catholics are with me....

[TechnoGuyRob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Also, the poll is missing Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other major religions.

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

[Nickel]

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

Odd to have a poll on religion, but leave out a couple religions on purpose. Specifically two large religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. May I ask why?

[steph3n]

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

i tihnk you forgot some, why not report it to mods and have them add it in?

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul is my deity?

I'm scared to know who chose that.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Odd to have a poll on religion, but leave out a couple religions on purpose. Specifically two large religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. May I ask why?

The poll only allows 10 spots, and I didn't know what else to chunk off.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I'm breaking the rules. Ron Paul is my deity. If you respond anything else, then you aren't a true supporter, a true patriot, or champion of liberty. If you believe in some other God then I suggest that you stop it or at least suspend it until the election is over. Ron Paul needs all of the spiritual help that he can get right now. Ron Paul is the Prince of Peace and blessed be the peacemakers.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Which ones should be replaced with a different choice if a mod comes along?

[ctb619]

The poll only allows 10 spots, and I didn't know what else to chunk off.

I suggest Pastafarian

[TechnoGuyRob]

I'm breaking the rules. Ron Paul is my deity. If you respond anything else, then you aren't a true supporter, a true patriot, or champion of liberty. If you believe in some other God then I suggest that you stop it or at least suspend it until the election is over. Ron Paul needs all of the spiritual help that he can get right now. Ron Paul is the Prince of Peace and blessed be the peacemakers.

Amen; hail the Holy Pauly!:p

[TechnoGuyRob]

I suggest Pastafarian

Yes, but I didn't want to choose between Hindi/Buddhism. Maybe a mod can add more choices. :)

[McDermit]

LOL@this thread

[billm317]

What's commonly referred as an agnostic is technically an atheist, but whatever. :)

[huchahucha]

I chose Agnostic, but as a SubGenius I could have chosen all of the options and still told the truth.

[Kregener]

You have several Christian "sects", but no plain old Christian.

Sorry, I cannot vote.

[billm317]

You have several Christian "sects", but no plain old Christian.

Sorry, I cannot vote.

Just choose atheist. I'm guessing you're an atheist to all deities except the Christian god.

[Kregener]

That was a stupid comment.

Weird.

[billm317]

That was a stupid comment.

Weird.

relax stud. it was a joke

[Kregener]

My bad.

Weird...joke.

[billm317]

My bad.

Weird...joke.

maybe it's just weird because you've never thought of it like that before lol
it's cool

[quickmike]

YAAAAAY!!!!

Us agnostics are winning the vote!! LOL

I dont really care what anyone believes in, as long as they dont want to tell me what to do and how to think.

If theyre good people, I get along with them. If theyre dicks, it doesnt really matter what religion they are, or lack thereof.

Ive met alot of Christians that are jerks, and alot of atheists and agnostics that are as well.

Why does religion even come up in politics anyway?

[Razmear]

Once again the Pagan religions are omitted while we get 4 flavors of Christians. :(

[quickmike]

Once again the Pagan religions are omitted while we get 4 flavors of Christians. :(

And so close to Halloween too!!!!!

Such a shame.

:D

[enjerth]

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

I think there's some kind of conspiracy. I'm J... wait, you said not to disclose what religion I am.

[Perry]

You have several Christian "sects", but no plain old Christian.

Sorry, I cannot vote.

Are you protesting? What does that make you?:D

[Perry]

Agnostics believe there might be a God. They are freaking CRAZIES!!

[nexalacer]

Why does religion even come up in politics anyway?

The answer to this question explains a LOT about the last 5000 years of history.

[TechnoGuyRob]

As I thought, the secularists dominate the Ron Paul playing field (at least online), primarily because they originated from traditionally secular media such as Digg and Reddit.

[Razmear]

And so close to Halloween too!!!!!

Such a shame.

:D

Thats Samhain :p , Halloween is a Christian ripoff of one of our holidays, just like Christmas (Yule) and Easter (Ostara) and a few more that I can't recall at the moment.



paganism is still a religion? I remember reading verses in Quran talking about that, and I didnt think there we any anymore, just thought they wer hindus or buddhists :X

Yeah, there are still many Pagans around, and in many different flavors. The most well know are probably the Wiccans but I'm personally an Erisian.

eb

[orenbus]

NOOOO you tricked me, I voted Pastafarian and now you say it's Jewish? I'm not jewish I'm Pastafarian! :p

[quickmike]

Agnostics believe there might be a God. They are freaking CRAZIES!!

Actually some of us believe there might OR might not be a god. Theres really no way to tell 100% for sure is there? Unless someone knows all that there is to know in the ENTIRE universe, it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god.

Its like trying to guess whats inside a locked box that nobody has ever opened before. All you can do is guess. To do anything else is just being dishonest with yourself in my opinion.

[Pete]

Why don't you consolidate the Christian groups and add Jewish, Hindu/Buddhist and Pagan?

How about a new poll? This one's not too old yet.

[orenbus]

Why don't you consolidate the Christian groups and add Jewish, Hindu/Buddhist and Pagan?

How about a new poll? This one's not too old yet.



I PROTEST

If we do another one he's going to take off pastafarian, that's not fair! :mad:

[Perry]

Actually some of us believe there might OR might not be a god.

Don't those things mean the same thing? :D



Theres really no way to tell 100% for sure is there? Unless someone knows all that there is to know in the ENTIRE universe, it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god.

Its like trying to guess whats inside a locked box that nobody has ever opened before. All you can do is guess. To do anything else is just being dishonest with yourself in my opinion.

I would argue that your perspective is of one who has not been humbled and asked God for the truth. You have not yet had a spiritual experience that motivates you towards God. Of course this type of experience means nothing to someone who hasn't experienced it but once it has been experienced it progresses to something that is more than a guessing game. Obviously nothing that can be proven though.

[inibo]

What's commonly referred as an agnostic is technically an atheist, but whatever. :)


That opens the kind of philosophical can of worms that the OP was probably trying to avoid, but I'll lift the lid a little anyway. I am most definitely not an atheist, though I had to pick other because my spiritual orientation was not on the list, but I am an agnostic in that the nature of deity cannot be known--almost by definition--any one who asserts otherwise is is either deluded or does not understand knowledge or deity.

[inibo]

Once again the Pagan religions are omitted while we get 4 flavors of Christians. :(

I wasn't going to mention that, but since you did: it urks the crap out of me that a natural libertarian constituency seems to be being ignored, my first three recruits to Ron Paul were Thelemites. What part of "Light, Life, Love and Liberty" do Ron Paul supporters not understand.

[Revolution9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Also, the poll is missing Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other major religions.

And Orthodox Human<--that is me.

And where is Wiccan?

Best
Randy

[Michael Ingram]

very bad poll

[quickmike]

Don't those things mean the same thing? :D



I would argue that your perspective is of one who has not been humbled and asked God for the truth. You have not yet had a spiritual experience that motivates you towards God. Of course this type of experience means nothing to someone who hasn't experienced it but once it has been experienced it progresses to something that is more than a guessing game. Obviously nothing that can be proven though.



Ok, but how do you know that it is God that is giving you this spiritual experience when you ask for it. How do you know its not just some little green man up in the sky, listening to you and playing with your head, shooting some kind of beam into your brain and causing some kind of chemical reaction inside of you, giving you the "feeling" of a spitritual awakening?

Sure, it sounds nuts to you im sure. It seems ridiculous to me as well to believe my "little green men" theory on the existance of god, but I would argue that it is about the same as saying that you know for a fact that it is God that is doing this and has about an equal chance of being correct as yours does, given the fact that nothing can be proven.

Its equivalent to the fact that they say some people get the same effect from eating chocolate as they do from being in love. So lets say you are eating some chocolate, and in walks a beautiful, intellegent woman and you strike up a conversation with her. Suddenly you get the feeling of deep attraction and love for her. Is it the chocolate that made you feel this way, or was it real feelings of love? Its impossible to tell.

I believe that people in their search for god sometimes "fool" themselves by wanting to believe so badly, that they subliminally predispose themselves to be set up for something like this to happen.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying for fact that there is no god. Im just saying that you have no more proof that there is on that I have that their isnt.

Id say that leaves us both completely in the dark on the 100% sure existance or non existance either way.

[Edward]

42

[TechnoGuyRob]

Darn you, Edward, why'd you have to bump this awfully faulty poll? :p

EDIT: HOLY CRAP! Now I get it! Atheists and agnostics are 42%!!! :D

[Edward]

Darn you, Edward, why'd you have to bump this awfully faulty poll? :pI couldn't help it... I have obsessive-compulsive disorder.


EDIT: HOLY CRAP! Now I get it! Atheists and agnostics are 42%!!! :DThat's not why I put "42", however, it's interesting to note that both polls are remarkable close on those percentages.

[NewEnd]

pantheist or animist maybe. I put agnostic.

[francisco]

How about "None of Your Business" or "Mind Your Own Business" or "Who Cares" as choices?

[SeanEdwards]

This poll is meaningless since the FSM can change everyone's votes at will.

You will bow down before his noodly eminence.

[amonasro]

pastafarian lol :D

[ZenX]

42?
google this: What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

No Buddhist choice? hmmm...om...

[Menthol Patch]

I'm a Christian.

[Wyurm]

Quite a few Ron Paulians in here, I'm not breaking the rules, I didn't actually say that was my choice. I mean, I could have said that, but I didn't actually say it.

[francisco]

42?
google this: What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

No Buddhist choice? hmmm...om...

Actually, it is the dimensionless value of 1/137

[TechnoGuyRob]

Actually, it is the dimensionless value of 1/137

Shh, the fine structure constant has no place in this thread.

[Wyurm]

Actually, it is the dimensionless value of 1/137

You haven't read "Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" have you?

[francisco]

Actually, it is the dimensionless value of 1/137

The Fine Structure Constant

"It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly! "— Richard P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press 1985, p. 129.

[Revolution9]

paganism is still a religion? I remember reading verses in Quran talking about that, and I didnt think there we any anymore, just thought they wer hindus or buddhists :X

Generally these days they are based on Northern European and Celtic Nature Magick and Ritual coinciding with the seasonal cycles.

Best
Randy

[francisco]

You haven't read "Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" have you?

A long time ago.

The book I really, really want all Ron Paul supporters to read is Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[RonPaulwillWin]

LOL@ 'the Ron Paul is my deity', more atheists to be counted? Must be a record for a republican primary. :)

[Danny Molina]

I chose pastafarian but TBQH I don't know what to believe. I'm just a big skeptic of all religions.

[Voice]

All Hail Ron Paul

[rasheedwallace]

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

and why would you exclude those two...?

wtf is a pastafarian.

[wisconsinite]

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

Why would you leave out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose?

There are a lot of Buddhists and Hindus in America. And they love liberty, too. :)

[SeanEdwards]

and why would you exclude those two...?

wtf is a pastafarian.

http://www.venganza.org/

Read, believe, and be a heathen no longer!

[stewie3128]

I left out Hindu and Buddhist on purpose, but I swear I included Judaism...

Crap!

That's because Hinduism and Buddhism are second-tier religions with no chance of winning, right?

[SeanEdwards]

That's because Hinduism and Buddhism are second-tier religions with no chance of winning, right?

Ok this guy wins the thread.

[Mark]

Oh man.. I left out Hindu too on the PaulPrayer.com forum...

I'll fix that..

but.. I'm tempted to select "other" since I disagree with labels that divide
and prefer just plain 'ol "Christian".

[Mark]

what's Pastafarian?

A Rastafarian Paul supporter?

[Mark]

They are in alphabetical order, so no complaints about that, please.

Roman Catholic
Mormon


Aww MAN!!!

"R" comes before "M"???

No wonder I flunked that test..

[Mark]

The Fine Structure Constant

"It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly! "— Richard P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press 1985, p. 129.

Have y'all seen this?

Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything


By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 14/11/2007
Page 1 of 2


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/graphics/2007/11/14/scisurf114.jpg

[TechnoGuyRob]

Roman Catholic
Mormon


Aww MAN!!!

"R" comes before "M"???

No wonder I flunked that test..

"C" for Catholic. A mod changed my poll a while ago by adding "Roman." Thanks for nothing, political correctness! *shakes fist*

[Mark]

The Fine Structure Constant

"It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly! "— Richard P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press 1985, p. 129.

Oh.. no wonder they're confused..

they're calculating with "the speed of light" as a "constant"

The speed of light is a variable..

[TechnoGuyRob]

LOL@ 'the Ron Paul is my deity', more atheists to be counted? Must be a record for a republican primary. :)

True, if you add up Atheist/Agnostic/Pastafarian/Ron Paul you get 55+%! By far the majority! :D

Of course, it's not exactly a fair poll, as the internet is densely populated with male atheists, and that inflates the "real-life" supporters count.

[Mark]

Thank goodness.. sometimes... for Wiki..

"Is the fine structure constant really constant?

Physicists have been wondering for many years whether the fine structure constant is really a constant,
i.e., whether or not its value is different at different times or in different places."



No! It is NOT a constant.

It's value DOES vary.. for one.. based on the actual "speed of light"

edit:

oh.. ok.. they're starting to see that now..

More recently, theoretical interest in varying constants (not just http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/2/7/b27abc434a11d07b390df859d7aa782a.png)
has been motivated by string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) and other such proposals
for going beyond the Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics.



"

[TechnoGuyRob]

Oh.. no wonder they're confused..

they're calculating with "the speed of light" as a "constant"

The speed of light is a variable..

Not in vacuum, it isn't. At least, not according to our finest measuring apparatus.

[Mark]

Not in vacuum, it isn't. At least, not according to our finest measuring apparatus.

What about introducing varying gravitational fields in the vaccum?

[Mark]

Not in vacuum, it isn't. At least, not according to our finest measuring apparatus.

"speed of light" ~ Wiki
Accelerated frames of reference and general relativity

Although it is constant in inertial frames of reference in special relativity, the speed of light can vary based on its position for accelerated frames of reference in special relativity and in general relativity.


The cause of this change is gravitational time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation). As clocks at lower gravitational potentials tick slower, a beam of light will take longer to move along a rod at a lower gravitational potential than it would take to move along an identical rod at ones own potential. This light is considered to be moving more slowly at lower potentials. This slowdown becomes extreme as the light approaches the event horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon) of a black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole), where both time and light will appear to stop. Similarly, light will appear to go faster at higher gravitational potentials.


edit:

Gravitational time dilation is a consequence of Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)'s theories of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) and related theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theories_of_gravitation) which causes time to pass at different rates in regions of a different gravitational potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential); the higher the local distortion of spacetime due to gravity, the slower time passes.
This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoseconds).
Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) in 1907 as a consequence of special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) in accelerated frames of reference. In general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), it is considered to be difference in the passage of proper time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time) at different positions as described by a metric tensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_%28general_relativity%29) of spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime). The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound-Rebka experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment).

[TechnoGuyRob]

What about introducing varying gravitational fields in the vaccum?

Doesn't change the speed of light, but it might look like it to an external observer because of the spacetime curvature! :)

EDIT: Doesn't change the speed of light, just spacetime. :)

[Hope]

Yes, but I didn't want to choose between Hindi/Buddhism. Maybe a mod can add more choices. :)

Um, your choices are very redundant there's a lot that could be chopped off. Baptists are a sect of Protestant Christianity, they don't deserve their own category. Pastafarianism isn't a real religion and having Ron Paul up there is funny but pretty much makes the poll moot, since we don't know how many people are choosing Ron Paul but are really atheist or whatever.

[Mark]

Doesn't change the speed of light, but it might look like it to an external observer because of the spacetime curvature! :)

EDIT: Doesn't change the speed of light, just spacetime. :)

ok.. but.. wouldn't that affect the fine structure constant
in "the real world"?

[Mark]

Um, your choices are very redundant there's a lot that could be chopped off. Baptists are a sect of Protestant Christianity, they don't deserve their own category. Pastafarianism isn't a real religion and having Ron Paul up there is funny but pretty much makes the poll moot, since we don't know how many people are choosing Ron Paul but are really atheist or whatever.

NEW POLL!!

Actually.. I noticed Baptist right away.. as Protestant..

and.. even Roman Catholic.. technically.. is "Christian".. or..

it should be.. however.. given some of it's official positions..
that's arguable..

[Mark]

Doesn't change the speed of light, but it might look like it to an external observer because of the spacetime curvature! :)

EDIT: Doesn't change the speed of light, just spacetime. :)

Actually.. for "full disclosure"..

I've never heard of the fine-structure constant until now..

so.. I was just 'brain storming".. but..
it does seem that there are questions being raised
regarding it's "constant" nature now..


"Physicists have been wondering for many years whether the fine structure constant is really a constant,
i.e., whether or not its value is different at different times or in different places."

"More recently, theoretical interest in varying constants (not just http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/2/7/b27abc434a11d07b390df859d7aa782a.png)
has been motivated by string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) and other such proposals
for going beyond the Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics."

~~~~

I can't prove it of course at this point.. but.. my "gut" tells me that it's not a constant
and I think that's why there are problems with proving it's definitely a constant.

i.e. one can call an apple an orange all day.. but.. since it's not an orange..
you can never prove it.. because.. it's not..

~~~~

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm

Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science --
that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong.

Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905,
physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light
-- 300 million metres per second -- is a constant and that nothing has,
or can, travel faster.

John Moffat of the physics department disagrees
- light once traveled much faster than it does today, he believes.

Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe
would appear to back up his belief.

~~~~

I'm tellin' ya.. I've always thought that the speed of light wasn't constant..
I don't have fancy calculations to prove it..

but.. at least I'm not alone..

~~~~~~

edit:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm

Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of Light Might Change

ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2001) — In 1905, Einstein made major changes to laws of physics
when he established his theory of relativity.

Now Einstein's laws might also undergo significant changes.

Dimitri Nanopoulos, who holds the rank of Distinguished Professor of Physics at Texas A&M University
and heads the Houston Advanced Research Center's Group for Astroparticle Physics,
established, along with other physicists, that the speed of light,
instead of being the constant value of 186,282 miles per second, might change.


If the speed of light proves not to be constant any more, even by a very small changeable amount,
laws of physics - the theory of relativity included - will have to undergo significant changes,"

says Nanopoulos. Nanopoulos, who chairs the Theoretical Physics Division of the Academy of Athens,
is among the many physicists who are trying to establish the basis of quantum gravity,
a theory that has been dreamed of by physicists since the 1920s.

While they were doing mathematical calculations,
Nanopoulos and physicists Nikolaos Mavromatos of King's College in London
and John Ellis of the European Center for Particle Physics (CERN) in Geneva,
discovered a new expression for the speed of light, which depends on its frequency.

"Through our calculations, we found that the speed of light is frequency-dependent,"
says Nanopoulos.

"But a change in the usual speed of light value of 186,282 miles per second is noticeable
only for light coming from astronomical objects situated very far from Earth,
which is why this frequency dependence has not been noticed so far."

~~~~~~~~~~~

See.. they're starting to recognize that the speed of light is NOT a constant..

I could have told them that..

[Ozwest]

Damn! It is so peaceful being an Athiest.

[Mark]

Damn! It is so peaceful being an Athiest.

Yeah.. but you miss out on knowing things like

the speed of light isn't a constant.. before scientists do..

Knowing God exists is worth it..;)

[TechnoGuyRob]

Yeah.. but you miss out on knowing things like

the speed of light isn't a constant.. before scientists do..

Knowing God exists is worth it..;)

Unfortunately, you also learn that pi is 3 (http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/). :p

[leipo]

What's commonly referred as an agnostic is technically an atheist, but whatever. :)

No, it's not. Atheists believe there are no gods and Agnostics just don't know. As a side note, I have never met an Atheist who hasnt had a christian upbringing. I am a deist, so i had to choose 'other'.

[Ozwest]

Yeah.. but you miss out on knowing things like

the speed of light isn't a constant.. before scientists do..

Knowing God exists is worth it..;)

Yeah, but what about all that freaking guilt. Not mention the 69 virgins... oops wrong religion. Please don't send a lightening bolt my way, Heeebeee Geeeebies!

[Ozwest]

Didn't mean to offend, grew up in an extremely religious family, but came out the other side.

[nexalacer]

No, it's not. Atheists believe there are no gods and Agnostics just don't know. As a side note, I have never met an Atheist who hasnt had a christian upbringing. I am a deist, so i had to choose 'other'.

I'm the first then. I had no Christian upbringing, yet I'm Atheist. I think the difference is most Atheists that were raised Christian are hateful in their attacks on Christians. I don't attempt to attack or even enter debates in Christians. I just try to point out the irrationality when they claim rationality.

I think depending on the definition of gods, it is easy to make the choice between seeing no possible way that a god could exist and not knowing. If the definition is contradictory, then the object it is defining can't exist. For example, a square circle can't exist. consciousness without matter can't exist, with the knowledge we have currently. All-powerful and all-knowing are contradictory, therefore cannot exist together. Could my understanding of the situation change if new evidence came to light? Sure, but I'm not going to play with the foolish Pascal's wager while I'm waiting.

[Ozwest]

I'm the first then. I had no Christian upbringing, yet I'm Atheist. I think the difference is most Atheists that were raised Christian are hateful in their attacks on Christians. I don't attempt to attack or even enter debates in Christians. I just try to point out the irrationality when they claim rationality.

I think depending on the definition of gods, it is easy to make the choice between seeing no possible way that a god could exist and not knowing. If the definition is contradictory, then the object it is defining can't exist. For example, a square circle can't exist. consciousness without matter can't exist, with the knowledge we have currently. All-powerful and all-knowing are contradictory, therefore cannot exist together. Could my understanding of the situation change if new evidence came to light? Sure, but I'm not going to play with the foolish Pascal's wager while I'm waiting.

What you say is accurate. As an Athiest who had a religious upbringing, a slow awakening occurs, first on a religious level, then to a scientific level, and further to a historical and geographical level... Informing your family and friends that you don't share their beliefs is interesting. A gradual acceptance from others begins...

[HazardPerry]

Good to see some fellow Muslims coming out for the good doctor. :D

[RevolutionSD]

It's interesting how many agnostics/athiests are ron paul supporters. I'm one of them, and I used to think I was in the minority, but lately I'm finding more and more of them wherever I go.

[Edward]

It's interesting how many agnostics/athiests are ron paul supporters. I'm one of them, and I used to think I was in the minority, but lately I'm finding more and more of them wherever I go.Indeed...

44.54% A/A in this poll (n=348): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22949&page=10

42.54% A/A in this poll (n=228): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=434240#post434240

45.76% A/A in this poll (n=212): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=11549&page=7

[mtmedlin]

Damn! It is so peaceful being an Athiest.

No were not, because your science is flawed and it is MY atheism that is superior!

[Visual]

I'm the first then. I had no Christian upbringing, yet I'm Atheist. I think the difference is most Atheists that were raised Christian are hateful in their attacks on Christians. I don't attempt to attack or even enter debates in Christians. I just try to point out the irrationality when they claim rationality.

I think depending on the definition of gods, it is easy to make the choice between seeing no possible way that a god could exist and not knowing. If the definition is contradictory, then the object it is defining can't exist. For example, a square circle can't exist. consciousness without matter can't exist, with the knowledge we have currently. All-powerful and all-knowing are contradictory, therefore cannot exist together. Could my understanding of the situation change if new evidence came to light? Sure, but I'm not going to play with the foolish Pascal's wager while I'm waiting.

Atheists who attack on christians has nothing to do with how they became atheist, but more having to do with their personality.

Also, I think the poll is a little skewed since a large majority of internet go-ers are atheists/agnostics.

[kylejack]

Poll is missing deism, the religion of many of our founding fathers.

[Mark]

Didn't mean to offend, grew up in an extremely religious family, but came out the other side.


No offense friend.. I did too.. even what I would call a "cult"..
the Jehovah's Witnesses..

It's just that.. I didn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater"

I knew that it wasn't God's fault.. when humans misinterpreted Him..
and used Him to manipulate people..

I'd encourage you to focus on The Love of God
instead of paying attention to what some humans say about him..

It's all about... you and God.. not..

you.. other people.. God

ect..

[RLGraham]

I don't know if this has been clarified yet, but some of you seem to be confused.

An agnostic says "There is no proof for or against X religion, therefore I do not know."

The atheist says "I absolutely know that X religion is not true."

The atheist must take a "leap of faith", if you will, similar to that of a theist to come to his conclusion. How much of a "leap" is taken for either side is, of course, decidedly subjective and polarizing.

[cascade77]

I like pasta - so I guess I´m a Pastafarian ;)

[Danny Molina]

If atheists were given proof of the existence of a higher being atheists would believe in it. They just want proof.

Agnostics know there is a creator but are not sure about much else.

[J4ck]

Buddhist.

@danny
lol..

[inibo]

Unfortunately, you also learn that pi is 3 (http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/). :p

:D

[kylejack]

I don't know if this has been clarified yet, but some of you seem to be confused.

An agnostic says "There is no proof for or against X religion, therefore I do not know."

The atheist says "I absolutely know that X religion is not true."

The atheist must take a "leap of faith", if you will, similar to that of a theist to come to his conclusion. How much of a "leap" is taken for either side is, of course, decidedly subjective and polarizing.

I don't agree with that definition of atheism. I'd say its more "I do not believe God exists." Someone who "absolutely knows" maybe could be described as an avid atheist, maybe.

This is symmetrical with a theist. Theists often call themselves "believers" because they believe God exists. I doubt all of them would say they "absolutely know" God exists.

[inibo]

No, it's not. Atheists believe there are no gods and Agnostics just don't know.

Actually, agnostics come in (at least) to varieties: those who say they don't know and those who say it can't be known--at least not in an objective sense. I put myself in the later category even though I know God--for want of a better term--exists. It's just not possible to prove it objectively. I'll be very obscure and state the the fundamental tenet of inibo's Creed:

Beyond the Highest there is only the Limitless Light.
Beyond the Light there is only the Limitless.
Beyond the Limitless, Nothing.

[grfgerger]

I've got buddhist tendencies. I tend to believe in God as defined by the law of the universe. In other words, not a religious idol or omnipotent diety, but rather a scientific order to all things. Einstien was someone else who thought this way.

[UCFGavin]

christian, but i consider myself non-denominational. the majority of people in specific denominations are nothing but hypocrites.

[kylejack]

Actually, agnostics come in (at least) to varieties: those who say they don't know and those who say it can't be known--at least not in an objective sense. I put myself in the later category even though I know God--for want of a better term--exists. It's just not possible to prove it objectively. I'll be very obscure and state the the fundamental tenet of inibo's Creed:

Beyond the Highest there is only the Limitless Light.
Beyond the Light there is only the Limitless.
Beyond the Limitless, Nothing.

You're a deist.

[justinc.1089]

I'm not too sure what I am right now lol. Seriously. I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist, but I find Christianity a little hard to believe now, although I still consider myself an Adventist for some odd reason idk. But I find Hindu-ish concepts fascinating right now like astral projection and reincarnation, but I don't really believe them at all, I just find them interesting to learn about. Since I don't really believe any religious stuff much, but I do think there is some God figure out there, I'm also kind of agnostic. So I guess I would have to go with Adventist or Agnostic if I had to choose, but I'm really not too sure lol.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Such a "Just a Follower of Christ". I feel dirty when I have to be boxed in with religious "Christians" who believe Church is a building they go to on Sunday morning.
:(

[RLGraham]

You're a deist.


I think Kylejack is right. Although, I must admit, when my life came to a point where I decided where I was on this dubious spectrum of deities, rather than what I was indoctrinated in to, I didn't like the idea of a label being put on me at all and resisted whenever someone tried to place one on me.

In any case, it's a great topic to read a book about, even if you're sure where you stand but just aren't sure about the semantics!

[Jerome]

I think it is awesome to have such a diverse crowd.

[The Plan]

I think putting up polls like this on this board are a bad idea. You seem to forget that the press is watching this place and we don't need to give them anymore information that they can use as a tool to marginalise us as a group. we need to be smart about this and keep this information to ourselves. The last thing we need are these douchebags sitting there telling the world that we're a bunch of athiests and pastafarians. He needs the religious right to vote for him too you know. Besides we all know that none of us are voting for him based upon a religious belief of any sort besides freedom. The less they know the better our advantage brains and stealth are the keys to helping him win.

[Mandrik]

Greek Orthodox!

[RLGraham]

Cake or Death?

[lastnymleft]

Quite a few Ron Paulians in here, I'm not breaking the rules, I didn't actually say that was my choice. I mean, I could have said that, but I didn't actually say it.

All good fodder for those that claim we are part of a cult!


Interesting to see the atheists doing so well. Somebody told me once that they didn't think an atheist could ever be elected President. Far less likely than an African-American, or a woman, being voted Prez. That's kinda sad, if true.

[lastnymleft]

I don't know if this has been clarified yet, but some of you seem to be confused.

An agnostic says "There is no proof for or against X religion, therefore I do not know."

The atheist says "I absolutely know that X religion is not true."

The atheist must take a "leap of faith", if you will, similar to that of a theist to come to his conclusion. How much of a "leap" is taken for either side is, of course, decidedly subjective and polarizing.

Actucally, an atheist (or, more appropriately, anti-theist) is one whom rejects the positive assertion that there is a god, due to lack of proof. It's the default position, from which various assertions are made, and thus varying flavor religions derive.

[nexalacer]

Actucally, an atheist (or, more appropriately, anti-theist) is one whom rejects the positive assertion that there is a god, due to lack of proof. It's the default position, from which various assertions are made, and thus varying flavor religions derive.

Well said. From this, it is quite clear, there is no leap of faith. Associating a "leap of faith" with atheism is common among those whose major moral code requires a "leap of faith." It's a problem of perspective and lack of empathy.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Edit:

[inibo]

Originally Posted by inibo
Actually, agnostics come in (at least) to varieties: those who say they don't know and those who say it can't be known--at least not in an objective sense. I put myself in the later category even though I know God--for want of a better term--exists. It's just not possible to prove it objectively. I'll be very obscure and state the the fundamental tenet of inibo's Creed:

Beyond the Highest there is only the Limitless Light.
Beyond the Light there is only the Limitless.
Beyond the Limitless, Nothing.

You're a deist.

Not really because I believe God does interact with creation, not in the traditional sense of parting seas and making the sun stand still, but in the realm of consciousness. At this stage of my spiritual development Jewish Mysticism, particularly that of Abraham Abulafia (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22abraham+abulafia%22), has the most resonance for me.

[lastnymleft]

"The atheist must take a "leap of faith", if you will, similar to that of a theist to come to his conclusion. How much of a "leap" is taken for either side is, of course, decidedly subjective and polarizing."

It takes no leap of faith to reject a hypothesis that is inadequately proven. All it takes is an understanding of the scientific method. Theists have put forth the hypothesis that there is a god, and that that god has certain characteristics; it is therefore up to them to prove such. Until such time as that hypothesis has been proven, the default, atheistic position, is the rational one.

But, to each their own. Whatever floats your boat.



Atheists can not know for sure that any religion is definitely not true, just like they can not know that Santa Claus definitely does not exist. (but, seriously, read what nexalacer said :p)

As I stated, atheism is not a positive assertion, it is simply the rejection of an inadequately proven hypothesis, so the only thing that needs to be known "for sure" is that the hypothesis has not been proven. You are correct in suggesting that the theist's hypothesis may well be true. But until the hypothesis is proven, you won't find any atheist believing such to be true. It's just not rational.


But enough of this, we have a campaign to win!

[RLGraham]

Well said. From this, it is quite clear, there is no leap of faith. Associating a "leap of faith" with atheism is common among those whose major moral code requires a "leap of faith." It's a problem of perspective and lack of empathy.

The point is this: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I'm merely pointing out the theist/athiest dichotomy from a scientific approach. There's nothing convenient or biased about it. Believe me, there wouldn't be half as many curmudgeon scientists around if this rule were not true. Bear in mind that the rule applies to both sides

[nexalacer]

The point is this: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I'm merely pointing out the theist/athiest dichotomy from a scientific approach. There's nothing convenient or biased about it. Believe me, there wouldn't be half as many curmudgeon scientists around if this rule were not true. Bear in mind that the rule applies to both sides

I think you're missing the main point of the atheist position. Of course atheists aren't saying the absence of proof is proof of the absence of gods. Atheists are simply saying,
"we will not accept a positive assertion without proof." To say that there is some sort of scientific dichotomy between the positions of gods and no gods, would be the same as saying as saying there is a scientific dichotomy between the positions of leprechauns and no leprechauns or circles and square circles.

Science and the theist position have nothing to do with each other.

[TechnoGuyRob]

100 atheists? :p

[RPFTW!]

Atheists ftw!

[AdoubleR]

Hey Rob! I think you're once of the nicest people on the board, but I will honestly have to say that I find your second edit offensive. You have the right to put it up there, but I also have the right to tell you how I feel about it. (The part where different God's encourage us to donate).

In keeping with your original request not to openly disclose my beleif, I wont specify which one I found offensive.

Thanks.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Hey Rob! I think you're once of the nicest people on the board, but I will honestly have to say that I find your second edit offensive. You have the right to put it up there, but I also have the right to tell you how I feel about it. (The part where different God's encourage us to donate).

In keeping with your original request not to openly disclose my beleif, I wont specify which one I found offensive.

Thanks.

Hey, so sorry! I just deleted it without even reading it. This thread is months old so sorry if anything I said was offensive! :(

[Edward]

Bumping for the new people.

[Edward]

Here are a list of similar RPF polls...

What Religion/Beliefs do you have? (12/19/2007)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=60623

What religion best describes you? (8/9/2007)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=11549&page=2

What religious beliefs best describe you? (9/22/2007)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=19569

What label most accurately describes your belief of the etiology of our universe? (10/5/2007)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22949

Which [religion/age] best describes you? [CLOSED]
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=19456&highlight=Poll

[CelestialRender]

I had to switch my vote due to a new option.

I guess I'm a flip-flopper now...

Does that mean I should vote for Romney?

[markj]

im wondering how many roman catholics are with me....

:cool: