philh

"Don’t know about that particular verse but here is that explanation again. " This is not an explaantion. You admit you dont know the verse or Hebrew. But yet you cling to the riduclous notion that rastach is only used for ""Do not put anyone to death without cause." Even though the bible/Torah uses the word for killings it itself describes as justified. But let me give you another proof. lev 21:17 "and he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. If you are right the word ratsach should be used here. but as I have said the wmany words for kill in hebrew are used interchangably in the bible. here the word nakah is used, not rastach. So your arguemnt falls apart yet again. You just dont want to admit the bible is contradictory when its clear as day that it is. My point tabout the defintion of ratsach changin gto suit Chritstain needs is not unsurported, its based upon the semantic evidence I have provided. As further evidecne I sight the fact the older bibles that date back to periods before people dared mentioned contradictions in the bible translted the word as kill. My comments are certainly not racist. First off Im Jewish by upbringing myself. Secondly all biblical scholars agree that OT was written by Jews, do you despute that? Furthermore the bible itself claims the Hebrew armies slaughtered all the Cannnanites, so its hardly racist of me to acuse them of a crime they themselves boast about. Nor do I restrict my distrust of conqquering armies propaganda to Hebrew armies; its common to most armies throuought history. "Finite mind trying to comprehend that of an infinite God. A completely holy and just God who views lying, theft, and adultery as extreme violations of his standard of perfect righteousness. I think the barbarism of the Canaanites probably far exceeded that. " This argument assumes that god exists and that god is perfect. What youa re basically saying is god is perfect so thereofre god is perfect. See the ciruclar argument here? furthermore by saying God is just and holy you are judging god in the same manner as I am. You are simply coming to a different conclusion. But god is not of the character you say even within the bible. Adultory an extreme violation? Why then do we have this passage in Hosea 1;2 "2The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms " Or how about lying; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: More importantly lets look at Isaiah 45; 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Its right there in your own bible, god is the sourse of all evil. Doubt that and your doubting your own bible.

well I cant speak for other atheists here.I dont agree with your comment "the laws of righteousness are already in your very being, " certainly there is evidence that all animals have to different degrees tendencies for co operative behaviour becase it is there mutual intersest. Humans are no exception. Morality comes to some extent from this. But theres nothing as specific as what your comment implies. Morality certainly changes over time. I would think that is obivous. Cetainly it is true that morality varies from trib to tirbe and so there is no reason to believe they would all follow the same rules. However the point is , in the bible god gives his laws specifcally to the hebrews, not to other tribes. Yet Chrisitians justify the slaughter of whole races on the grounds that they didnt follow a set of rules they were unaware of. Your comment about the an infinite is entirely assertion with no evidence. Your comment that the world is going down hhil since creation. where do you get this from? what evidence do you to suport this. For the majority of the life of this planet there were no animla life and certainly no human life, whats so good about that?

Just like a religious person to bow to authority by giving us Brown Driver Briggs definition rather than using their own mind. I have already pointed out a passage that contradicts this defintion.The word ratsach was clearly used in the Torah to describe a killing which was justified. Instead of using reason to undermine my argument you simply bow to authority. So as always, the debate between the religious and the non religious is a debate between reason and deference to authority. The latter, lets not forget , is the founding principle of fascism. It unsuprising that someone that has no problems with genocide takes such an aproach. Some modern translations use the phrase thou shalt not murder becuase they realise the bible is contradictory and so they change the translation to try and get rid of the contradictions. But a proper analysis of the Hebrew as I have provided shows this is not justified., "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of you God. I am the Lord. Leviticus 18:21 The Canaanites sacrificed infants to their gods as part of their religious rites. This practice was strictly forbidden by God." Lets examine your evidence. Its from the bible written by the hebrews , a race that committed genocide against the Cannanties. So why should we trust them? Many armies tell stories of opposing armeis killing their own children. Its rarley true. But even if it were true, why would this justify the genocide of that entire people. Many cultures have had human sacrifice and it is of course a barbaric practice but I dont see in any way how wiping the entire race out is preferable. Lets also point out that Solomon started to worship Molech but god didnt decide to wipe out the Hebrews. You say you are not justifying genocide and then the next setence you tell us that the Cannanties were guilty of breaking gods law. Why tell us this, if not to justify the genoicde? The facts are; such a genoicde is described as being carried out by Hebrew armies under the command of god. assuming these events did happened were they justified or not? Let me also point out that gods laws was not given to the Cannanites, so how did they know theyw ere breaking them? Were the children who were murdered also breaking gods law, the little babies? You say you dont agre with the holocaust and I dont expect you to do so. What I am saying is that the logic of your argument leads you there. Let me demonstrate; 1The Hebrews committed genoicde against many races, the Cannanties being one of them 2 You justify such action because these races (really tribes) were unrighteeous or didnt follow gods law, or however you want to phrase it. 3. Since NT times Jews have denied the divinty of Christ and the existence of the holy spirit. Lets not forget the the NT describes this as the one unforgivable sin. So they must be defying god and unrighteous in the eyes of Christians. 4. You state that the unrigtheous are deserved of genocide. The conlusion is the holocaust. That is one of the reasons why I want nothing to do with religion. Its a reason why religious people are so often happy to kill those they see as unrighteous. We should have nothing to do with it.

Having spent 8 years ina Hebrew school I can assure the word ratsach means kill, not specifically "intentional killing without cause" as you say. There are many words in Hebrew that mean kill and they are used interchangably in the Torah. But you dont have to take my word for it. Take for example Numbers 35 27And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: here the hebrew word ratsach is used and it very clearly states that the slayer -ratsach- is not guilty. So im sorry your argument falls apart. "The Canaanites had forsaken God and were performing acts such as burning their children as sacrifices to pagan gods. They were considered wicked by God and the order was given. The Canaanites were not innocent and deserved God’s righteous judgment. " Where is your evidence that the Cananites burnt their children?Lets be clear here, you are justifying genocide because the Cananites didnt have the correct religious beliefs. You are a Chiristian, all Jews by definition , reject Christ. So in your crazy logic you must agree with the Holocaust. I suggest that anyone who thinks genoicde is just is the lowest of the low. Quite frankly I would sooner hook up with the devil than a god that wants to comit genocide against a population becuase of their religion. The distinction you make betwen the moral law and the civil law, is one you have made up. The bible does not make any such distinction. Its very clear that the 10 commandments were given to the people of Isreal not to the whole world. As were the punishments for such transgressions. There is nothing in the text to treat them differnelty.

Its a serious question. Is your resposnse a lazy way to doddge it? "You’d be guilty of breaking the 6th Commandment and God will hold it against you. " This is a laughable comment quite frankly. There are countless commands by god to kill in the bible. So are you saying that everyone who follows gods commands are also breaking gods laws? I have already shown you the passage in the bible that tells us the punishment for blasphamey is death. Its not the only death penalty in the bible, Im sure you know that. God commanded the death penalty for adultery: Leviticus 20:10-12 10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Those that claim some of the vile laws in the OT only apply to OT Isreal should tell us why the 10 commandments should be treated differently, after all they were given to OT Isreal as well. Lets not forget what jesus said: Mathew 5 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. He had the chance to say unambigously -I have come to tear the old laws up, that they dont apply that one shouldnt execute blasphemeres, gays, adulterers and sabbath breakers- but he didnt. So he is at worst a tryant and at best contradictory.

Why use "the original Greek" did Jessu(if he existed) speak Greek, I dont think so. Even if he did exist, the Nt (in Greek) is a translation written at the very least ,several decase after the words were spoken. I dont see any reason to treat such a text seriously. Why not just say the whole bible is hyperbole?Once you say some of it is not literal then the whole house of cards starts tumbling down. In the case of Jesus saying hate your family i think he was making the points that many cults make. That is everything is subsevient to the cult. The bible is clear; if there is conflict of belief vs family you do not carry on loving your family you kill them. What a great text.

Its interesting that Christians tell us the bible doesnt mean what it says when they dont like what it says

"Satan goes around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour...he comes to steal, kill and destroy. ( Bible quote) Do you not believe he has power to deceive people from the truth? Do you not believe he wants to rip families apart, have people bound to sexual and drug addictions, commit suicide, encourage molestation? " Do you have any evidence that Satan exists? Do you have any evidence that if he does exist, he acts in the way you describe? As far as tearing up families i think you should read your bible a bit more. Consider how Deut orders us to treat family members who follow a different religious belief: "9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. " or how about what Jesus said in luke "26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

"It’s because we aren’t capable of knowing the thought life of an individual. " So if it were possible you would be happy to arrest people for their thoughts? "Both free will and predestination can be shown to exist equally in scripture. Some call this a paradox because we can’t understand how they work together and that they appear to be mutually exclusive. They obviously exist together. We just don’t understand how. " So what you are saying is that yes you recognise the contradiction between free will and determinism. But becuase that contradiction is in the bible and you believe the bible doesnt have contradictions then it cant be a contradiction. HHm see your circular reasoning? Its amazing how bible people just assume its all true and then get the result its all true!

"It’s all about motive. You don’t have to perform the act to be guilty. You’ve thought about it." If that were true and valid why not make our civil law on that basis? Someone thought about committing a crime, so why dont we arrest them and have a thought police? Backs up what ive always thought; religion is just fascism , the blind obedience to authority - real or imagined. Religious people talk about free will, its all nonsese. 2 reasons; 1 in a democratic country an election is considered a free election if poeple are free to vote for whom they want. If the repulicans said if you dont vote for us we will torture you , I dont think anyone would consider it a free election or a free choice. In most mono theistic religions there is a punishment for not chosing to follow the religion therefore it is not a free choice. 2. In mono theistics religion there is the view that god can see the future perfectly(hence prophesy). the ability to perfectly see the future means that no one has free will as the universe would have to be completley deterministic to have perfect foresight of the future, complete determinism contradicts free will.

"I believe that everyone (even atheists) deep down at the most basic level realizes deep down (even though they might not understand or even if they are rebelling against the notion and won’t admit it) that their soul is eternal " I can asure you, that you are wrong. I dont believe in a soul let alone an eternal one. Neither does Remster so thats at least two of us, I suspect there might be more. Its very arrogant of you to tell other people what they believe deep down. Are you sure you are not just projecting your own beliefs onto other people? Some people are compelled to seek answers to the big questions as you put it, some are not, so what? " I am forced to admit that I've lied, stolen, committed adultery (in my mind), been disobedient to my parents, hated others, to name a few. I personally base that on a standard greater than myself. I'm forced to admit to myself that my nature is not good." i think you are being too harsh on yourself. Youve committed adultery in your mind, what are you on about? If i see a nice car and wish it were mine have ai committed theft in my mind? when i recall a film I saw in the cinema am I committing video piracy in my mind. I don't think so. All animlas are capable fo both selfish and co operative behaviour. I think co operative behaviour in animlas(including humans) is more common than you think. One only has to be aware that tit for tat consitently beat always defect in prisoner dilema simulations to see evidence for that. Even if it were true that we were by nature selfish, if you believe a god created us then its clearly his fault, dont blame yourself.

Like any organisation the police can make mistakes. In this case it looks like they did, although the full facts are not in yet. We should support the poice in making raids against potential terrorist threats. After all if they dont the results wilbe a lot worse than one guy injured. However if a mistake is made and an innocent person is hurt, surely it would be wise for community relations, atleast, to provide compensation.

God hates fags it says so in the bible : Lev 20:13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Also god hates: blasphemers:Lev 24 " 16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death," Aslo god hates: anyone following a different religion: Exodus 22 20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Also god hates Sabbath breakers: Exodus 35: 2Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. I could go on. Conclusion:lets not just ban gay marriage. Lets join the Taliban.

"Atheistic faith: The sudden appearance of all matter from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" i think you need to check your facts. First off there is an observed phenemenon called a quantum vacum fluctuation which exactly meets your description. Many scientists have built model of the origin of the universe based upon such fluctuations. The idea being that negative gravatational energy balances out the positive mass energy, thus allowing the universe to be borne out of such a vacum fluctuation. Whether these two energy do balance out is not exactly known. But to say its basd upon blind faith is very wrong indeed. Furthermore atheism does not imply any belief as to the origin of the univers. Even if the models described above are entirely wrong its makes no difference. Atheism is the dis belief in god not the the belief in any one explanation of the universes origin. To simply answer "I dont know" to the question of our origins is sufficient. Even if every proposed scientific explanaiton is wrong does not make the god explantion right.

"Someone walks up to you on the street, and hands you a key. They tell you that it is a key to a saftey deposit box which contains a fortune. One of three things happens. You think the person is bsing you, and you refuse the key straight out. You take the key, put it in your pocket, go home, forget about it, the wife does the laundry, and the key is lost. Or, you take the key, go to the bank, open the box, and find out that it was true. Christ is offered to all of mankind. Those who take the key, and open the box, are the ones who are rewarded. The rest have to pay the penalty for rejecting the treasure, which is eternal separation from God and Christ." In your analagoy, you have forgotten that if you dont take they key you get tortured for all eternity and thats even if you handt been told there is a key to take. Todays pr minded Christians like to make out hell in their theology is simply seperation form god but thats not what the bible says. Its very clear for example. MAthew 13, 42. "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." So lets sum up the Christian message. Believe in uss or we torture you for all eternity. Doesnt matter if you r a mass killer likely Jef Dahmer, join us and we forgive you. If you r someone that preaches non violence in a violent world like Gahndi you still go to hell becuase of your religious beliefs. Great eh?

"Why don't you post your own thread and boast about how nothingness has always been there to help you out in your darkest hour? Is it Christ or his flawed followers that really pisses you people off? I would love to see how many christians jump on to refute your veiws. I am happy to answer your questions. Your first question implies that belief is there to act functionally. A belief in a god is there to get you through you darkest hour. But my (non)belief is not there to functionally improve my life but is simply based upon the lack of evidence for god, simple as that. No evidence in god, no belief in god. If that makes my darkest hour harder , so be it. In fact I think it can make your performance in your darkest hour better. I am reminded of the movie/book "Touching the Void". In it, a climber tells the story of his escape from a tragic accident. Please see this film it is amazing. Whilst trapped in a cravass with a broken leg, He decides not to lapse back into his childhood catholicism and prey for rescue. Instead he embraces his atheism and decided the only being that can help him is himself and he gets himself out of his nightmare predicament. i suggets if he sat in there and prayed he would not be here to tell the story. Its Christs followers that piss me off. They wrote the bible. Christ himslef may have existed, he might not have. He might have said the things attributed to him, he might not have. We just dont know. so I have little opionion of him. What I have an opinion of is the bible a book not written by Chrisrt whether he lived or not.

Language like so many toher things evolves. Meanings of words change I see no reason to use some ancient definition of the word Dr rather than the current one. Did you know Fuck orginally meant fornication under the command of king? not sure I will only use this word for the royals.

I just heard the news about Taz. I am in shock. She was such a wonderful person, always smiling and full of joy. We will miss her so much. My thoughts are with her family and Gav,remember she lived more in 32 years than most would do in 132 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5007118.stm Interesting controversey here between qualified doctors and some nutcase that believes in various delusions eg homeopathy - the "science" that says the more you dilute a substance the stronger it gets. Funny I usually get more drunk with a stronger drink than a weaker one.

theres a clock showing u how much time left on your lfight. Use that as your alti.

"But I did not seem them imply that you can change it, just that there are things that are uncertain until you observe them. (At least I didn't think it did.)" On the bastkeball court in the movie we are told about superpositioning and how collapsing the wave function forces a particle to chose a location. We are then given this speach "superheroes use super position, we are all being potential strips of reality until we chose. heroes chose what they want." Why give this speech after our superpositing lecture if not to imply we can chose the outcome of QM events? The next chap in the movie says "instead of thinking of things as things, we all have a habit of thinking that everything around is already a thing existing wihtout my input,without my choice, you have to banish that kind of thinking." OR how about this quote from the movie "If you accept with every rudiment of your being that you will walk on water , will it happen?yes it will" or this one: one might ask how th nutty chiropractor kept a straight face when he said : "I wake up in the morning and I consciously create my day the way i want it to happen" No my misguided friends you cannot chose the outcome of a quantum probabilistic event. You cannot walk on water just becuase you want to. re the ships in 1492. The film claims not that they saw the ships and didnt recognise what they were but that they literally couldnt see them. Your argument may be consistent with not recognisng something but that isnt what the film said at all. In fact they even said the shamen saw the ripples but not the ships. What a load of rubbish , where is the evidence that any of this story is true? There isnt any. "consciousness is the result of the interplay of millions of brain cells," exactly so how can the cells themselves be conscious?

-note i just moved this thread frm the bonfire to speakers corner cos I thought it was more relevant here. I just saw the movie "What the bleep do we know?"and so apologies for being behind the times. But I think it is very misleading film and if you read on you will see why. First off there's one part of it I like , the rest is BS, and that is people need to take responsibilit for their actions - cool, agreed. Now the BS 1.YOU CANNOT CREATE YOUR REALITY WITH QM First off the films main claims are that Quantum Mechanincs (QM) implies that consciousness creates reality. This is not remotely correct. Whilst the act of observation interferes with and changes an event that in no way implies a person can chose the outcome of the event. In classical physics positions and momentums are thought to be given outside of the role of the observer. In QM it is realised that in order to observe something we need to see it and that means bouncing photons off whatever we're obvserviing, these photons change the position of the particle we are obsvering. So yes our consicousness can interact with the sub atomic world in unepected ways in QM. Does that mean we can create our reality? No of course not. Just as your actions when you role the dice in a craps game determine the outcome doesnt means you can decide to role 2 6,s , snake eyes etc. A classic thought eperiment in Qm is the Schroedingers Cat paradox. The film makers claim Qm is a science of possibilites, to some extent this is true. But not in the way they say. In this (thought) experiment a cat is placed in a box with lethal device. The device will go off and kill the cat depending upon a probabilistic QM event. In QM the act of observation collapses the wave function and turns the probabilistic event into an actual outcome.But what happens to the cat before it is observed? Now there are many interpretations of this paradox, one of which is the parralel worlds hypotheis which says before the box is opened the cat is dead in one unvierse and alive in another the act of opening the box decided which universe we are in. Another interpreation is that the reailty doesnt exist until the wave function exists.Although even in this interpretation its the act of interacting with the enviroment that collapses the wave function not necessarily the conscious act of observation. But heres the kicker, whichever interpreation you choose there is no way in QM that the observer can chose for the cat to be alive or dead and this is the main point. Just becuase an even is probablistic and has an interaction with an observer does not in any way mean the observer can determine the outcome. SO the primary message of the film is just BS. It has nothing whatsoever to do with QM. 2. QM HAS LITTLE DO WITH OUR LIVES QM is probabilistic and classical physics is deterministic. These differences are of interest in a abstract philisophical way. But the film implies this has implication for how we live our lives. No it doesn't. At a macroscopic level the differences between QM and classical physics are as close to zero to be considered zero. For example in classical physics if you throw an object like a tennis ball at a solid wall then it will bounce back at you. IN QM things are different there is possibility that the ball will go straight through the wall. But QM tells us that whilst that it is possible it is very unlikely. I am told that the likelihood is 10 to the power 23.45 billion to 1. Thast a big number ,think 10 to the power of 2 is 100 to the power of 3 is 1000. To the power of 23.45 billion, well its never going to happen is it? For sub atomic particles, that need less energy to tunnel, and where there are large amount s of them , it can happen. But clearly the effect does not translate to the macroscopic world . So the whilst sub atomic particles might be able to do strange things it doesn not mean we can. We cant walk on water or through walls, whenever someone does its magic trick not anything to do whith QM. At the macroscopic level QM and classicla physics are effectivley the same so the whole premise of the film collapses. 3. CELLS ARE NOT CONSCIOUSS The film talk a lot about the brain and how thoughts are created there and then goes on to say cells are consiouss, but erm excuse me ,have you forgotten cells dont have brains? Did no one spot this huge contradiction? Perhps thats why we didnt all laugh at the chap that said he creats his own reality each day. Does he win the lottery every week? I doubt it. 4 THE NATIVE AMERICANS COULDNT SEE THE EUROPEAN SHIPS In the film they claim the native Americans couldnt see in 1492 European ships becasue theyd never seen the ships before and therefore they hadnt created the reailty of it. Where on earth do they get this stuff from? The native Americans didnt keep written records so I suggest they just made it up. Does that mean when planes first flew no one could see them? Did no one see the IPOD nano when it was luanched? its hard to take such views seriously. 5 WATER HAS NO EMOTIONS In the movie the claims of DR emoto are stated as facts. He claims water reacts to emotional states. he placed words sudh as love on one sample and got pretty images and negative words like hate and got ugly images. These we are told are water molecules captured by a dark field microscope. Its very important stuff since are bodies are mostly water. UHm hang on a sec. If these water images were in you body you would be dead. Why? Becuase they are not pictures of water molecules at all but ice crystals. Crystal patterns are very sensitive to their intial conditions and you can get lots of patterns. What Emoto did has neverr been reproduced by scientifc checking. indeed James Randi has said his conclusion would qualify for his $1m prize(for anyone who proves the supernatural) if they could be, but suprise suprise Dr emoto doesnt want the $1m. Real science double blinds expermients. Dr Emoto doesnt't. 6 THE POWER OF THOUGHT DIDNT REDUCE THE DC CRIME WAVE The movie tells us about a bunch of of Transcedental MEditationists(TM) who reduced the crime wave by 25%(although the authors of the study claimed 18%) in DC in 1993 by meditating. In fact this "reduction" was in comparison with what the TM chaps projected the crime rate would have been wihtout them. The actual cirme rate was up. THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE MOVIE Well there are some respectable scientist here for example David Albert of Columbia UNi this is what we had to say about it: "I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed." Many of the other talking heads are part of a cult group called the Ramtha School of enlightment. Did you wonder who the woman with the blonde hair and the red top was? If you stayed for the end of the movie you will see she is listed as Ramtha channeled by JZ Knight. Ramtha is supposed 35,000 year old being from Atlantis who is channeled by this woman to give us wisdom. Still sound lik science? In fact this film is financed and created by memebers of this cult as a subtle advert. I suggest we don't buy their product.

I just saw this movie and so apologies for being behind the times. But I think it is very misleading film and if you read on you will see why. First off there's one part of it I like , the rest is BS, and that is people need to take responsibilit for their actions - cool, agreed. Now the BS 1.YOU CANNOT CREATE YOUR REALITY WITH QM First off the films main claims are that Quantum Mechanincs (QM) implies that consciousness creates reality. This is not remotely correct. Whilst the act of observation interferes with and changes an event that in no way implies a person can chose the outcome of the event. In classical physics positions and momentums are thought to be given outside of the role of the observer. In QM it is realised that in order to observe something we need to see it and that means bouncing photons off whatever we're obvserviing, these photons change the position of the particle we are obsvering. So yes our consicousness can interact with the sub atomic world in unepected ways in QM. Does that mean we can create our reality? No of course not. Just as your actions when you role the dice in a craps game determine the outcome doesnt means you can decide to role 2 6,s , snake eyes etc. A classic thought eperiment in Qm is the Schroedingers Cat paradox. The film makers claim Qm is a science of possibilites, to some extent this is true. But not in the way they say. In this (thought) experiment a cat is placed in a box with lethal device. The device will go off and kill the cat depending upon a probabilistic QM event. In QM the act of observation collapses the wave function and turns the probabilistic event into an actual outcome.But what happens to the cat before it is observed? Now there are many interpretations of this paradox, one of which is the parralel worlds hypotheis which says before the box is opened the cat is dead in one unvierse and alive in another the act of opening the box decided which universe we are in. Another interpreation is that the reailty doesnt exist until the wave function exists.Although even in this interpretation its the act of interacting with the enviroment that collapses the wave function not necessarily the conscious act of observation. But heres the kicker, whichever interpreation you choose there is no way in QM that the observer can chose for the cat to be alive or dead and this is the main point. Just becuase an even is probablistic and has an interaction with an observer does not in any way mean the observer can determine the outcome. SO the primary message of the film is just BS. It has nothing whatsoever to do with QM. 2. QM HAS LITTLE DO WITH OUR LIVES QM is probabilistic and classical physics is deterministic. These differences are of interest in a abstract philisophical way. But the film implies this has implication for how we live our lives. No it doesn't. At a macroscopic level the differences between QM and classical physics are as close to zero to be considered zero. For example in classical physics if you throw an object like a tennis ball at a solid wall then it will bounce back at you. IN QM things are different there is possibility that the ball will go straight through the wall. But QM tells us that whilst that it is possible it is very unlikely. I am told that the likelihood is 10 to the power 23.45 billion to 1. Thast a big number ,think 10 to the power of 2 is 100 to the power of 3 is 1000. To the power of 23.45 billion, well its never going to happen is it? For sub atomic particles, that need less energy to tunnel, and where there are large amount s of them , it can happen. But clearly the effect does not translate to the macroscopic world . So the whilst sub atomic particles might be able to do strange things it doesn not mean we can. We cant walk on water or through walls, whenever someone does its magic trick not anything to do whith QM. At the macroscopic level QM and classicla physics are effectivley the same so the whole premise of the film collapses. 3. CELLS ARE NOT CONSCIOUSS The film talk a lot about the brain and how thoughts are created there and then goes on to say cells are consiouss, but erm excuse me ,have you forgotten cells dont have brains? Did no one spot this huge contradiction? Perhps thats why we didnt all laugh at the chap that said he creats his own reality each day. Does he win the lottery every week? I doubt it. 4 THE NATIVE AMERICANS COULDNT SEE THE EUROPEAN SHIPS In the film they claim the native Americans couldnt see in 1492 European ships becasue theyd never seen the ships before and therefore they hadnt created the reailty of it. Where on earth do they get this stuff from? The native Americans didnt keep written records so I suggest they just made it up. Does that mean when planes first flew no one could see them? Did no one see the IPOD nano when it was luanched? its hard to take such views seriously. 5 WATER HAS NO EMOTIONS In the movie the claims of DR emoto are stated as facts. He claims water reacts to emotional states. he placed words sudh as love on one sample and got pretty images and negative words like hate and got ugly images. These we are told are water molecules captured by a dark field microscope. Its very important stuff since are bodies are mostly water. UHm hang on a sec. If these water images were in you body you would be dead. Why? Becuase they are not pictures of water molecules at all but ice crystals. Crystal patterns are very sensitive to their intial conditions and you can get lots of patterns. What Emoto did has neverr been reproduced by scientifc checking. indeed James Randi has said his conclusion would qualify for his $1m prize(for anyone who proves the supernatural) if they could be, but suprise suprise Dr emoto doesnt want the $1m. Real science double blinds expermients. Dr Emoto doesnt't. 6 THE POWER OF THOUGHT DIDNT REDUCE THE DC CRIME WAVE The movie tells us about a bunch of of Transcedental MEditationists(TM) who reduced the crime wave by 25%(although the authors of the study claimed 18%) in DC in 1993 by meditating. In fact this "reduction" was in comparison with what the TM chaps projected the crime rate would have been wihtout them. The actual cirme rate was up. THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE MOVIE Well there are some respectable scientist here for example David Albert of Columbia UNi this is what we had to say about it: "I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed." Many of the other talking heads are part of a cult group called the Ramtha School of enlightment. Did you wonder who the woman with the blonde hair and the red top was? If you stayed for the end of the movie you will see she is listed as Ramtha channeled by JZ Knight. Ramtha is supposed 35,000 year old being from Atlantis who is channeled by this woman to give us wisdom. Still sound lik science? In fact this film is financed and created by memebers of this cult as a subtle advert. I suggest we don't buy their product.

Anyone have air to air intercoms in the uk and can coach at aither Airkix or bedford? Would love to hear from u

I think a skydiving analalogy would help here. Imagine you have Country A where 100% of jumpers have an AAD and 1% its jumpers die per year and this stays the same for 10 yearrs . Lets also imagine you have Country B where 25% of its jumpers have an AAD and 4% of its jumpers die per year and this also stays the same for 10 years . Lets also presume that those extra death are from no or low pulls. i think it would be fair to conclude AAD's save lives. Not just from the stats but we understand that AADS save people from low or no pulls and thats what people were dying from. This is exactly what we have but in opposite form with guns. Guns take lives and those countries with more guns have more lives taken. The conclusion should be obvious. Now lets assume that Country B increases is % of AAD to 50% and the fatality rate goes up say to 5% in 1 year . Would we reverse our conclusion about AAD's? I dont think so. first off the change is not enough to outweigh the fact that although the death rate has gone up after an increase in AAD's. country B stil has a higher death rate and a lower AAD rate so the conclusion is still the same.Maybe its only true to 98.5% confidence level rather than 99% confidence level but its still true. furthermore it would take more than one years of data to reverse the conclusion if there had been ten years to establish it. This is exactly the same principle with your recent lower homicide stats in the USA.